The Sermon on the Mount. A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (ATLA Bibliography Series 3)

ATLA Bibliography Series edited by Dr. Kenneth E. Rowe 1. A Guide to the Study of The Holiness Movement, by Charles Edwin jones. 1974. 2. Thomas Merton: A Bibliography, by Marquita E. Breit. 1974. 3. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, by Warren S. Kissinger. 1975.

The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation

And Bibliography

by Warren 5. Kissinger

ATLA Bibliography Series, No. 3

The Scarecrow Press, lnc., Metuchen,

N.J.

and The American Theological Library Association

1975

The bibliography porti.on of this book was developed and greatly ex:panded from the bibliography and the extensive private collecti.on of books on the Sermon on the Mount of the late W. Harold Row.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Kissinger, Warren S 1922The Sermon on the Mount. (ATLA bib1iography series ; no. 3) Part II was deve1oped and greatly expanded from the bibliography and books of the 1ate W. Haro1d Row. Bibliography: p. Inc1udes index. 1. Sermon on the mount. 2. Sermon on the mount-Bib1iography. 3. Beatitudes--Bibliography. I. Tit1e. II. Series: American Theo1ogica1 Library Association. ATLA bibliography series ; no. 3. BT380.2.K5 1975 226'.9'06 75-29031 ISBN 0-8108-0843-9

Copyright © 1975 by Warren S. Kissinger Manufactured in the United States of America

to W. HAROLD ROW

1912-1971

Blessed are the peacernakers for they shall be called sons of God

EDITOR' S NOTE The American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series is designed to stimulate and encourage the preparation of reliable bibliographies and guides to the literature of religious studies in all of its scope and variety.

Each compiler is free to define his

field, make his own selections, and work out internal organization as the unique demands of his subject indicate. Warren S. Kissinger studied theology at Yale Divinity School and at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., and library science at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

An ordained

minister in the Church of the Brethren, he has served several pastorates in Pennsylvania, taught religion at Juniata College in Huntington, Pa., and currently serves as Subject Cataloger in Religion at the Library of Congress. We are pleased to publish this guide to the literature of the Sermon on the Mount, the bibliography for which was developed from the collection of the late W. Harold Row, as number three in our series. Kenneth E. Rowe, Editor Drew University Library Madison, New Jersey

V

IN APPRECIATION: W. HAROLD ROW The Sermon on the Mount held an unrelenting fascination for Harold Row from his early student days to his death.

In the first

years of our marriage moments of leisure were spent in secondhand book stores seeking books on the Sermon which he hoped to include in our library when the budget would allow.

Quite often he would

find a copy which he wanted very much, but the price was too high. He would say, "That's too much now.

Let's wait awhile."

So a

mental note was made that this book would be a birthday or Christmas gift. The collection grew over the years, and with it a list of titles yet to be collected.

As his work took him over the United States

and to other countries, he carried this list of titles.

When a free

moment presented itself he would visit book stores, libraries at colleges, universities, and theological schools to locate other writings on the Sermon on the Mount.

As a result, he added books in other

languages (German, Russian, etc.) to his English collection. more importantly, his bibliography kept growing.

But

It was his plan to

annotate these titles, and publish his findings for the use of persons interested in the Sermon. During his illness (after moving to Washington, D. C. from Elgin, lllinois), he worked with the author, the Rev. Warren Kissinger, who is employed at the Library of Congress, adding new titles as they were discovered.

Many long, painful days for Harold were

brightened by a visit from Warren bringing still a new title. A natural sequence followed in the discovery that Warren was interested in completing the project after Harold' s death.

Not only

did he follow through with Harold's idea, but went further to write a History of Interpretation of the Sermon. vii

This has been deeply

satisfying to our family to see this dream of Harold's completed. Our warm personal thanks go to Warren Ki.ssinger for his many acts of kindness before Harold's death, and now, for his thorough and comprehensive work to complete and expand the idea started as a "hobby. " Dr. Andrew

w.

Cordier, in the Foreword for the Bibliography

has enlarged this idea.

We are appreciative of the Foreword, as

well as the enriching friendship over the years. In addition, our deep gratitude goes to librarians and religious

leaders who aided in this quest.

Many of these we visited together

while Harold was on sabbatical leave.

Others were contacted in

leisure moments when he was alone.

Countries and libraries listed

are only those of which I am aware.

They are:

Austria (Vienna),

Denmark (Copenhagen), England (London), France (Paris), Germany (Berlin,

G~tingen,

Leipzig, Hamburg, Tiibingen, Munich, Stuttgart,

Bonn, Freiburg, Düsseldorf), Greece (Athens), Holland (The Hague, Amsterdam), Italy (Naples), U. S. S. R. (Moscow,

Leningrad,

others),

SWeden (Stockholm), Finland (Helsinki), and SWitzerland (Basel, Bern, Zürich). Leona Z. Row Washington, D. C.

viii

CONTENTS Editor's Note (Kenneth E. Rowe) In Appreciation:

W. Harold Row

Introduction Part I. 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

V

vii xi

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

The Literature The Ante-Nicene Period Didache Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Chrysostom Augustine The Medieval Period Martin Luther Huldreich Zwingli J ohn Calvin The Anabaptists Protestant Scholasticism to Protestant Liberalism Protestant Scholasticism The Puritans The Quakers German Pietism John Wesley Protestant Liberalism Adoll von Harnack Wilhelm Herrmann Friedrich August Tholuck Spren Kierkegaard Leo Tolstoy Consistent Eschatology Johannes Weiss Albert Schweitzer Dispensationalism Carl Stange Gerhard Kittel Horace Marriott Hans Windisch An Impossible Possibility C. H. Dodd Dietrich Bonhoeffer Martin Dibelius ix

1 5

7 7

7 8 9 9

12 16 20 23

26 29 34 34 35 37 37 40 42 44 46 48

52 56 57

61 66

69 71 72 77 79

83 87

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35

Leonhard Ragaz The Mansons William Manson T. W. Manson Amos N. Wilder Archibald M. Hunter John Wiek Bowman Carl F. H. Henry Joachim Jeremias Harvey K. McArthur W. D. Davies Jewish Interpretations Claude G. Montefiore Gerald Friedlander

116 119

Afterword

122

Part II.

91 94 95 97 98

101 104 106 108 110 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foreword (Andrew W. Cordier)

127

Sermon on the Mount Texts Sermon on the Mount Criticism, Interpretations, Sermons, Meditations, etc. Beatitudes Criticism, Interpretation, Sermons, Meditations, etc.

128 143 242

APPENDIX "Sermon on the Mount" in Various Languages

277

BIBLICAL REFERENCES INDEX GENERAL INDEX

279 282

X

INTRODUCTION Like a mighty mountain, the Sermon on the Mount continues to attract persons of different backgrounds and traditions.

There is

general agreement that the Sermon offers a compendium of the teachings of Jesus, and that it is one of the most lofty and powerful expressions of the essence of the moral life.

Gandhi was much im-

pressed by it, and its impact upon him was second only to that of the Bhagavad Gi.ta.

Tolstoy came to a new Weltanschauung through

his reading and study of it.

Claude Montefiore, writing from a lib-

eral Jewish perspective, spoke of the Sermon's great nobility, significance, and power.

Nietzsche was one who did not share this al-

most universal admiration.

For him the Sermon on the Mount rep-

resented a significant part of Jesus' ethics, which was a "slave morality." When one turns to questions about the Sermon's meaning and relevance, there is far from unanimity of opinion.

A cluster of

problems has divided interpreterB from the first centuries of the Christian era to the present.

Among them are:

Was the Sermon

delivered as it stands? or Is it a composite of Jesus' sayings given at different times and places?

To whom was it addressed?

original with Jesus? or Is it paralleled in rabbinie sources? was its status and authority in primitive Christianity?

Is it What

Did Jesus

institute a new law in the Sermon on the Mount that was as binding as the Torah had been in Judaism?

What bearing did Jesus' escha-

tological outlook have upon the Sermon's content and relevance? How can one reconcile the Sermon's emphasis upon works and merit with the Pauline understanding of "grace alone?"

In what sense is

the Sermon on the Mount relevant for us today who live in different times and are perplexed by other problems than those prevailing in first-century Palestine?

The essay and bibliography which follow xi

reflect some of the many attempts which have been made to wrestle with these problems. Part I traces in 35 sections the history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount from the patristic period to the twentieth century.

Most of the authors discussed have written significant mono-

graphs on the Sermon on the Mount.

But I have also chosen others

who have interpreted the Sermon through works devoted to other subjects such as Christian ethics, New Testament criticism, teachings of Jesus, etc.

In addition I have examined movements such as Ana-

baptism, Protestant Liberalism, Consistent Eschatology, Dispensationalism, whose distinctive emphases have had important consequences for Sermon on the Mount interpretation. Part II comprises a bibliography of the Sermon on the Mount. This bibliography had its origin with the late W. Harold Row who for many years was an avid collector of books on the Sermon on the Mount.

In his travels here and abroad he was always eager to

enlarge his collection, which was probably the largest anywhere.

He

intended to prepare an annotated bibliography, but unfortunately his lang illness and untimely death prevented him.

Following Harold's

death, Mrs. Row encouraged me to complete this work.

Beginning

with the Harold Row collection and the bibliography he compiled, which included about 540 unannotated entries, I made additions from the Library of Congress and its extensive bibliographical resources, and from the following libraries:

Associated Mennonite Biblical

Seminaries, Catholic University of America, Drew University, Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, Hartlord Seminary Foundation, Harvard Divinity School, Notre Dame University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Union Theological Seminary (New York), Union Theological Seminary (Richmond, Va. ) , Wesley Theological Seminary, and the Yale Divinity School. The bibliography is generally limited to studies that have the Sermon on the Mount and/or the Beatitudes as their major emphasis.

Omitted are Bible commentaries and commentaries on Mat-

thew and Luke, works on the life and teachings of Jesus, New Testament and Christian ethics, New Testament theology, and the Christian life, all of which usually contain some material on the Sermon

xii

on the Mount.

These are recommended as additional and suppte-

mental resources to the bibliography.

Also omitted are two other

well-lmown parts of the Sermon on the Mount--the Lord's Prayer and the Golden Rule. Part li contains three sections.

First, there is a partial list-

ing of texts of the Sermon on the Mount in many languages. of these were translated and printed by missionaries.

Some

Consequently,

some people had their first introduction to the Bible via the Sermon on the Mount.

Other editions were privately printed and have ornate

illuminations and binding.

The second and third parts are partially-

annotated bibliographies of criticism, interpretation, sermons, meditations, etc., the first on the Sermon on the Mount, and the second on the Beatitudes. My indebtedness is aclmowledged to numerous persons who assisted in this project.

First, to Leona Z. Row for her encourage-

ment, Support, and zealous interest; to various librarians of the above-named institutions who manifested the librarian's usual skill, courtesy, and helpfulness; to a number of colleagues at the Library of Congress, especially Dr. Edwin Bonsack, for their generous assistance with certain language problems and constructions; to Dr. David J. Wieand of Bethany Theological Seminary and Dr. Clarence Bau-

man of Mennonite Biblical Seminary for reading Part I of the manuscript and offering helpful criticism and Suggestions; and to Darlene Rose for her assistance in typing Part li of the manuscript. Warren S. Kissinger University Park, Md. November 1974

xiii

Part I HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION 1

THE LITERATURE

In his Introduction to The Preaching of Chrysostom; Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount, Jeroslav Pelikan states that the history of the exposition of the Sermon on the Mount has not yet been written and that ü one were to include in that history all the references to the Sermon on the Mount in the history of exegesis, and especially the expositians of the Lord's Prayer, it would be a massive historical enterprise. Clarence Tucker Craig in a review of Martin Dibelius' The Sermon on the Mount, speaks of three main types of books that are written on the Sermon on the Mount. The majority are homiletical applications to contemporary lüe with little endeavor to discover the circumstances under which the words were originally spoken. The second type is apologetic, discussing the Jewish parallels in order to estimate the degree of originality of Jesus in relation to the rabbis. Craig says that there have been all too few genuinely historical works of which Dibelius' book is a signüicant type [Journal of Religion 21 (Jan 1941), 70]. The bibliography which follows this essay confirms the above observations by Pelikan and Craig. While there are no systematic histories of the exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, there are a nurober of works which do deal with this area. In addition, there are monographs devoted to a given writer's interpretation of the Sermon or to that of a few selected authors. In what follows we will attempt to briefly describe this literature. The work which comes nearest to a history of the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is Harvey K. McArthur's Understanding the Sermon on the Mount [see Bibliography]. In the Prologue, McArthur gives a brief account of the literature on the Sermon from the Dictaehe to the present. He discusses the Sermon on the Mount under four categories: the Mosaic tradition, the Pauline tradition, the Eschaton, Ethics. In each section he refers to major interpreterB of the Sermon in reference to these categories. In his fourth chapter McArthur lists 12 approaches to the Sermon on the Mount: (1) Absolutist, (2) Modification, (3) Hyperbole, (4) General Principles, (5) Attitudes-Not-Acts, (6) Double Standard, (7) Two Realms, (8) Analogy of Scripture, (9) Interim Ethic, (10) Modern Dispensationalist, (11) Repentance, and (12) Unconditional Divine Will. Under each of these McArthur discusses writers who have been representative of these respective approaches. Carl F. H. Henry in his chapter on the Sermon on the Mount

1

2

History of Interpretation

in Christian Personal Ethics follows a typology similar to that of McArthur. He refers to seven appraisals which have been made of the Sermon and to representatives of each except for the "Reformed" in which he develops his own views. Henry's seven types are: (1) Humanistic, (2) Liberal, (3) Dispensational, (4) Interim Ethic, (5) Existential, (6) Anabaptist-Mennonite, and (7) Reformed. August Tholuck in the introduction to Die Bergpredigt (i. e., Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount) has a section on "Exegetical Literature" in which he comments briefly on many commentaries on the Gospels and on Matthew, as wen as on single works on the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and the Lord's Prayer, from the Church Fathers to his own time. His comments are very brief and in most cases highly opinionated. In Der Sinn der Bergpredigt (The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount), Hans Windisch criticizes "some recent interpretations" of the meaning of the commandments and the problern of their practicability. He deals primarily with Dibelius, Herrmann, and Bultmann. Under his criticism of the "dogmatic solutions of the problern of impossibility, " Windisch treats Carl Stange and Gerhard Kittel. In his essay, "The Sermon on the Mount," in the Interpreter's Bible, Amos Wilder describes briefly the "chief conceptions that have been held concerning the meaning and intention of the discourse. " He gives primary attention to the Reformation, the nineteenth century, Schweitzer, and Dibelius. James Langley's Th. D. thesis, "Critique of Contemporary Interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, " analyses the views of Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Anabaptists, Tolstoy, Herrmann, Stange, and Kittel. The major portion of the thesis examines and criticizes the interpretations of Schweitzer, Reinhold Niebuhr, and C. H. Dodd. In the first part of Tal Bonham's The Demands of Discipleship: The Relevance of the Sermon on the Mount, he criticizes Schweitzer's view as "the interim evasion of the Sermon's relevance," and Dispensationalism as "the postponed evasion of the Sermon's relevance. " In his fourth chapter Bonharn attempts to identüy the most prominent modern interpretations of the Sermon's relevance under the following headings: Salvation, Social reformation, Proclamation of perfection, External transformation, lnternal transformation, Peace-of-Mind, Judgment. He examines and discusses representative writers under each category. Günther Bornkamm 's essay "Die Gegenwartsdeutung der Bergpredigt" ("The History of the Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount") makes only brief references to the interpretation of the Sermon in Tolstoy, Marx, Ragaz, Weiss, Schweitzer, and Thurneysen. In Chapter IV of Archibald Hunter's A Pattern for Lüe there is a brief review of modern interpretations of the Sermon on the

The Literature

3

Mount including Tolstoy, Schweitzer, Hermann, Kittel, Bonhoeffer. Conrad R. Willard's Th. D. thesis, "The Sermon on the Mount in the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers from New Testament Times to Origen," sets forth the comments of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the Sermon on the Mount in a section by section commentary form. He also criticizes Schweitzer's interim ethic and the modern dispensationalist view, using H. A. Ironside as a representative. Kaarle Laurila in Leo Tolstoi und Martin Luther als Ausleger der Bergpredigt devotes 92 pages to Tolstoy's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. He begins with a discussion of the religiocentric character of Tolstoy's world view and proceeds to show how Tolstoy's understanding of the Sermon led to his views on anti-militarism, anti-patriotism, universal brotherhood, and anarchism. Laurila's interpretation of Luther is briefer and more congenial. He has a rather lengthy criticism of Tolstoy's views, especially on love and nonviolence. In a brief concluding section Laurila examines the thought of Emil Brunner and Carl Stange in reference to the Sermon on the Mount. In an article entitled "How Shall We Interpret the Sermon on the Mount?, " Irvin W. Batdorf examines the Sermon in reference to eschatology and to its practicability in Windisch, Dibelius, and Wilder. · Christian Krause has made a study of the Sermon on the Mount in ecumenical thought since World War II. He attempts to present a chronological development of ecumenical thought on the question of the Kingdom of God and eschatology, of ethics and of the Sermon on the Mount since World War II. Krause's examination of the available material, primarily the volumes of reports and minutes of ecumenical conferences, reveals that with few exceptions there has been little direct critical confrontation with the Sermon on the Mount in the discussions on social ethics in the ecumenical movement. Direct work on the Sermon in the ecumenical movement has been done primarily by the study conferences in London (1946) and Bossey (1947) on the theme "Biblical Authority for the Church's Social and Political Message Today." Turning now to studies on individual interpreterB of the Sermon on the Mount, Adolf Holl, in Augustins Bergpredigtexegesis nach seinem Frühwerk, discusses Augustine as textual critic of the Sermon on the Mount, his hermeneutical principles, and then treats Augustine's exegesis of the Sermon. Jeroslav Pelikan in the Introduction to The Preaching of Augustine; "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount," includes sections on "Augustine's Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount" and "Augustine as an Interpreter of the Sermon on the Mount. " Pelikan has also edited The Preaching of Chrysostom; Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount. In the Introduction he has a section

4

History of Interpretation

on "Chrysostom as an Expositor of the Sermon on the Mount." studies on Luther are more numerous than for anyone else. Georg W\insch's Die Bergpredigt bei Luther is a substantial study dealing with the relationship between Luther's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and his views regarding the world, man, property. Wünsch also discusses the early development of Luther's thought on the Sermon on the Mount and the sources of his views. As the title suggests, Harald Diem's Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen untersucht von seinem Verstandnis der Bergpredigt aus discusses Luther's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount in relation to his teaching regarding the two kingdoms. Hermann Beyer in his essay "Der Christ und die Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung" examines ·r.uther's views on the Sermon on the Mount with special reference to its relationship to the Christian life. Erwin Mühlhapt is the editor of a series entitled EvangelienAuslegung, which consists of ll!ther's exposition of the Gospels. One volume is Auslegung der Bergpredigt, which contains an introductory essay by Paul Althaus on Luther and the Sermon on the Mount. Calvin's approach to the Sermon on the Mount is described in two works. One is Evan elische Radikalismen in der Sicht Calvins; Sein Verständnis der Ber redi und der Aussendungsrede Matth. 10, by Hiltrud Stadtlund-Neumann. The author deals with Calvin's interpretation of Matt. 5:17-48, 6:19-34, 7:1-5 and in a brief concluding section, with his method of interpretation. The study is especially concerned with Calvin's differences with the Anabaptists and other sectarian movements. Hermann Schlingensiepen, in a Bonn dissertation, Die Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei Calvin, concentrates on Calvin's treatment of Christ as an interpreter of the Law and on the concept of love as reflected in the Sermon on the Mount. Ingred Engel has made a study of Friedrich Naumann and his views on the Sermon on the Mount. The work by Engel was a Marburg dissertation entitled "Die Bergpredigt in den sozialen Spannungen des 19. Jahrhunderts; Eine Untersuchung zu Friedrich Naumann." With slight revision, Engel 's thesis was published in 1972 with the title Gottverständnis und sozialpolitisches Handeln; Eine Untersuchung zu Friedrich Naumann. Naumann, who left the Lutheran ministry in 1894 to enter politics, was a faunder of the National Socialist Party and its first president. He was an advocate of pan-Germanism. After the November Revolution in 1918, he became one of the founders of the German Democratic Party. Throughout his career he attempted to

The Ante-Nicene Period

5

relate the Sermon on the Mount to his social and political views. His understanding of the Sermon was significantly influenced by a tour of Palestine in 1899. Naumann held the conviction that Jesus' task was to improve the present world through his deeds and words. This was the view of the Christian socialists in Germany who believed that the Gospel was a social message. His tour of Palestine, however, convinced Naumann that Jesus was not a social reformer and that it would not be right to derive a program of reform from the Sermon on the Mount. While Naumann believed that Jesus' ethical teachings should be understood literally, they cannot be literally fulfilled within our world and therefore they cannot any Ionger have authority. These views were impressed upon Naumann through his travels in the land where Jesus lived. Ingrid Engel studies the development of Naumann's social and political thought, especially in reference to his views on the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount. She concludes the work with an analysis of the change in Naumann's thinking which resulted from his travels in Palestine in 1899. In the chapters which follow, an attempt is made to trace the history of interpretati.on of the Sermon on the Mount from the patristic period to the twentieth century. From the extensive bibliographical material on the Sermon on the Mount I have attempted to discuss those movements and authors which have made the most significant contribution to this field. As the following bibliography shows, only a small part of the material is included. In addition to this are the many sermons, meditations, and popular works which relate the Sermon on the Mount to the Christian life in its individual and social dimensions. This essay and the accompanying bibliography substantiate the fact that the Sermon on the Mount has been, and continues to be, the most popular and most frequently discussed section of the Bible. 2 THE ANTE-NICENE PERIOD The immediate post-Resurrection period was a unique and crucial one in the history of the Church and in the development of Christian thought. The initial dynamic and ecstatic breakthrough of the post-Resurrection era had begun to wane. There was left, however, a set of ideas which had to be preserved and refined so that further missionary and educational activity could be carried on. There was a need for Christian witnesses who could recommend their new faith to Jews and pagans and who could find common terms of discourse in the interest of mutual understanding and persuasion. But early Christianity also had to defend the faith against hostile criticism and slander, and so the second century saw the rise of the apologetic movement. Jt was necessary for these "apologists" to defend the faith against a dual accusation. On the one hand,

6

History of Interpretation

Christi.anity was accused of being a danger to the Roman Empire and of undermining its structure. On the other hand, Christianity was seen as a nonsensical movement--a superstition mixed with philosophical fragments. From the writings of the Ante-Nicene period it is evident that one of the most serious threats to Christianity was posed by innumerable Gnostic schools and sects of the first three centuries. A sharp dualism of matter and spirit characterized the Gnostics. Salvation came by knowledge (gnosis) which they sought in various and often bizarre combinations of Christianity, Hellenistic philosophy, and Oriental cult, magic, and myth. Instead of a gospel rooted in history and in human life, they concerned themselves with a wholly "spiritual" realm which was accessible through secret wisdom. One of the most threatening of these Gnostic movements was associated with Marcion, a second-century Christian heretic, and against whom Tertullian wrote an apology. He was a bitter antiJudaist and a foe of legalism. Salvation came by faith alone, but not faith in the God of the Old Testament who was a barbarous and false deity. It must be by faith in the God of Jesus Christ who is a God of love and mercy. Marcionism was a real danger to Christianity because its dualism denied a real incarnation. Moreover, this same dualisti.c typology undercut Christianity from its historic and spiritual roots in Judaism. The Old Law and the New were not part of a continuing drama of redemption; rather there was a radical discontinuity between the two. This was something of the milieu of the post-Resurrection and Ante-Nicene period. And as might be expected, the writings from this period reflect the dynamic forces and tensions at work both within and upon the ernerging Christian movement. In its efforts to define and communicate the faith and to combat heresy, the Church's primary source of authority was the Scriptures of the Jewish Old Testament, and especially the Gospels and Epistles which recorded the events and the meaning of the life and work of Jesus. The Jewish Old Testament vias upheld against Marcionites and Gnostics, but it was so interpreted as to make Jesus the fulfiller of Messianic prophecy. A New Testament was compiled from the writings of those who were eyewitnesses or their immediate companions, and it became a trustworthy record of the initial revelation. The Scriptures then became for the Early Church a source of inspiration and authority as they gradually formulated their creeds and as they defined the correct interpretations of the Scriptures and the Church's tradition. No portion of the Scriptures was more frequently quoted and referred to by the Ante-Nicene writers than the Sermon on the Mount. The fifth chapter of Matthew appears more often in their works than any other single chapter, and Matthew 5-7 more frequently than any other three chapters in the entire Bible.

The Ante-Nicene Period

7

[Harold Smith, in Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels, 4 vols (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1926), records the comments of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the Gospels. The section on Matt. 5-7 with parallels in Luke in vol II covers pp 179-311. There is an index of biblical texts in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol X, A. Cleveland Coxe, ed (NY: Scribner's, 1899). The texts for Matt. 5-7 are on pp 237-8. Conrad R. Willard's "The Sermon on the Mount in the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers from New Testament Times to Origen," unpub ThD thesis, Central Theological Seminary, Kansas City, KS, 1956, sets forth the comments of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the Sermon on the Mount in a verse by verse commentary form.] DIDACHE One of the earliest extant post-biblical writings is the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which may date from the early part of the second century. It is a short early Christian manual on morals and church practice and consists of 16 brief chapters. Chapters 1-6 are a summary of Christian morality and describe the "Two Ways"--the "Way of Life" and the "Way of Death." This section includes quotations from the Sermon on the Mount such as the Golden Rule in negative form, and those verses relating to nonresistance, perfection, meekness. Chapter 8 on fasting and prayer makes reference to Matt. 6:5 on not "praying as the hypocrites do." This chapter also contains the full text of the Lord's Prayer. JUSTIN MARTYR Of the second-century Apologists perhaps the most important was Justin Martyr. His best-known work is an Apology addressed to the emperor Antonius Pius, the father of Marcus Aurelius. 1t is referred to as the First Apology because there is an appendix which is now commonly listed as a second apology. In the First Apology Justin replies to the charges of immorality which have been preferred against the Early Church. In chapters 15 and 16 he summarizes "some few of the doctrines which we have received from Christ himself." Through both these chapters he quotes freely from the Sermon on the Mount as examples of Christ's doctrine. These include references to Iust and adultery, divorce, Iove of enemies, non-swearing, anxiety, prayer, false prophets.

ffiENAEUS Irenaeus was born either in Syria or in Asia Minor, probably during the first half of the second century. He relates that in his early youth he was associated with Polycarp, Bishop, of Smyrna. Irenaeus accompanied Polycarp when he was sent on a mission to Marseilles in the south of Gaul. At Lyons Irenaeus became a deacon and later a presbyter. Of his works the chief one that remains is his five books Against Heresies. In Book IV, chapters 12-13,

8

History of Interpretation

lrenaeus discusses the relationship between the New Law and the Old and refers especially to Matt. 5:21ff., where Jesus ma.kes reference to what was said to the men of old and then to what he said. The thrust of Irenaeus' argument is that Jesus' message is not contrary to, nor is it an abrogation of past laws, but a fulfillment and extension of them. Moreover, such precepts as Jesus taught do not emanate from one who abolishes the Law, but from one who fulfils, expands and develops it in us (IV, 13, 4). Furthermore, Irenaeus also focuses on inward motives from which outward acts eventuate. Here he points to Jesus' words about lust and adultery, anger and murder. We must not only abstain from evil deeds but also from evil desires (IV, 13, 1). In IV, 16, 4 he says that the Gospel ma.kes an advance beyond the morality of the Law. Referring to Matt. 5:22 where Jesus says that whoever says, "You fool!," shall be liable to the hell of fire, Irenaeus states that the Gospel's morality is superior because it shows that man is not only responsible for his deeds, but also his words. TERTULLIAN Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second century. At the age of ab out forty he became a Christian and soon after a priest in Rome or in Carthage. He was the first major writer to use Latin and is sometimes called the father of Latin theology. The range of his writings is quite diverse, and he wrote as an apologist and as an opponent of heresy. Among his numerous writings are five big books Against Marcion. It is from this work that we get most of our information about Mareion because Tertullian quotes his views in order to answer them. In chapters 14-17 of Book IV Against Mareion Tertullian refers frequently to the Sermon on the Mount in his effort to refute Marcion's heresy. Tertullian uses several of the Beatitudes with their emphasis on blessing as a contrast to Marcion's god. Marcion' s god has never given proof of his liberality by any preceding bestowal of minor blessings (IV, 14). Likewise when Jesus refers to the fathers who spoke well of the prophets, Tertullian charges Marcion's Christ of being a "turncoat." Now the destroyer, now the advocate of the prophets! (IV, 15 ). The defense of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to destroy them (IV, 15). As with Irenaeus, Tertullian sees Christ as an extension and a continuation of the Law. Here too he is probably refuting Marcion's discontinuity between the Old and the New. In commenting on love of enemies and nonresistance Tertullian writes: "Thus, whatever [new provision] Christ introduced, he did it not in opposition to the Law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription of the Creator" (IV, 16).

Chrysostom

9

ORIGEN The most prolific of the Ante-Nicene writers was Origen, who was born of Christian parents, probably in Alexandria, about 185. Origen was primarily a biblical scholar. One of his works was a commentary on Matthew which was divided into 25 books. Unfortunately, the first nine, with the exception of two fragments, are lost. Book n which contained the Sermon on the Mount has only one extant fragment. This is on the seventh Beatitude: Blessed are the peacemakers [for English text of this fragment, see Origen's Commentary on Matthew in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol N, orig suppl to the- American ed, Allan Menzies, ed (NY: Scribner's, 1925), p 413]. From the foregoing survey of the Ante-Nicene Iiterature it is evident that the Sermon on the Mount was frequently quoted and referred to and that it was employed to define Christ' s teaching and doctrine and to answer and refute the charges levelled against the early Christi an community. But very early the Sermon on the Mount also became a classic statement of Christian ethics. It afforded direction as to what a Christian should be and how he should live. Conrad R, Willard in his thesis, "The Sermon on the Mount in the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers from New Testament Times to Origen" [references are to this unpub ThD .thesis, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, KS, 1956], is confident that the early Christians considered Jesus' teachings relevant and applicable to their situation. After a careful search of the literature, Willard states that the idea that the ethics of the Sermon were for some time in the future, when Christ would reign in person upon the earth, never once appears in their writings [P 124]. The moral authority of the Sermon on the Mount for the Ante-Nicene writers is further underscored by Willard: "The strength of this dissertation rests upon its presentation of the writings of the PostApostolic Church Fathers, illustrating beyond all doubt that they preached and taught and wrote as though the Sermon was valid for them and the people to whom they preached" (pp 191-92]. 3

ClffiYSOSTOM

Chrysostom was born in Antioch ca. 345-347 although there is some evidence that he may have been born in 354, the same year as Augustine. In 386 he was advanced to the priesthood and for the next twelve years he was the great preacher of Antioch, During this period he delivered a series of "Homilies" on Genesis, Matthew, John, Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Timothy, and Titus, which established his reputation as one of the greatest preachers and biblical expositors. His sermons exemplify an eminent combination of exegesis and practical application. However, unlike Origen, Tertullian, and others, he opposed the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. Chrysostom is the typical example of the Antiochene school of hermeneutics. The Antiochene school,

10

History of Interpretation

in contrast to the Alexandrian allegorical method, approached the Scriptures in a more sober and restrained manner and interpreted them more grammatically, historically, and literally. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew represents the oldest complete commentary on Matthew extant from the patristic period. Thus the section on the Sermon on the Mount is likewise the oldest and most thorough exposition from that period that is available today. As with his predecessors, so there is evidence in Chrysostom's homilies on the Sermon on the Mount that he was an apologist. The heretical dualistic views of the Gnostics and the Manicheans are his concern. In his comments on the first verses of Matthew 5 Chrysostom's reference to Gnostic dualism is evident: 11 • • • and besides, he stopped the shameless mouths of the heretics signifying by this his care of both parts of our being, that he hirnself is the Maker of the whole creation. Therefore also on each nature he bestowed abundant providence, now amending the one, now the other 11 (XV. 1) [references are to The Preaching of Chrysostom: Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount, ed Jeroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1973)]. Concerning Matt. 5:29: 11 If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee, 11 Chrysostom says: 11 • • • therefore he hath given these injunctions; not discoursing about our limbs;--far from it, -for nowhere doth he say that our flesh is to be blamed for things, but everywhere it is the evil mind that is accused, For it is not the eye that sees, but the mind and the thought 11 (XVn. 3). Here by implication he rejects the Gnostic-Manichean concept that the body is evil and the mind and spirit are good. Chrysostom rather reverses the situation and holds that it is the mind and thought that are the root of evil rather than the bodily organs. In XV. 8 Chrysostom refers to those who maintain that the Creator of the world and the one who 11 makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, who sends the rain on the just and on the unjust 11 is in some sense an evil being. He further comments on those who say that the Father to Christ was not the Creator. Of these he says: 11 Seest thou the children of the devil, how they speak out of the fountain of their father, alienating the work of creation from God .•. 11 (XVI. 8). Another dimension of Gnostic dualism, as we have seen, was the divorce between the old covenant and the new. In contrast to this discontinuity Chrysostom accepts the Old Testament. Regarding Matt. 5:20 where Jesus says that unless one's righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Chrysostom comments: And observe also here, how he commends the Old Law, by making a comparison between it and the other; which kind of thing implies it to be of the same tribe and kindred for more and less, is in the same kind. He doth not, you see, find fault with the Old Law, but will have it made stricter. Whereas, had it been evil, he would not have required more

Chrysostom

11

of it; he would not have made it more perfect, but would have cast it out.. . . So that from all considerations it is clear, that not from any badness in itself doth it fail to bring us in, but because it is now the season of higher precepts [XVI. 6]. In an even more pointed reference to the Gnostics and Manichaeans, he speaks about Jesus' coming not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. On this he says: "Now this not only obstructs the obstinancy of the Jews, but stops also the mouths of those heretics, who say that the old covenant is of the devil. For if Christ came to destroy his tyranny, how is this covenant not only not destroyed, but even fulfilled by him?" (XVI. 3 ). It is clear that for Chrysostom there is no break in the continuity of the Old and New Law. Jesus' sayings did not repeal the former, but they were "a drawing out, and filling up of them" (XVI. 4). Another perennial problern which came into sharp focus during the Reformation had to do with the applicability and relevance of the Sermon on the Mount to the common life. Was it intended for everyone, or was it a counsel of perfection applicable only to a select few who took the way of asceticism? Or is the Sermon an ethic only for a brief interim during which the messianic community awaits the coming of the Son of Man? These questions will be discussed in more detail later. Chrysostom, while he does not discuss these issues in any detailed or systematic fashion, does nevertheless indicate his thinking about them. The Sermon on the Mount begins with Jesus' disciples coming to him and his teaching them. While it is to them that the Sermon is initially addressed, nevertheless, Chrysostom says that it is directed to all through them (XV. 1}. "For though it was spoken unto them, it was written for the sake also of all men afterwards. And accordingly on this account, though he had his disciples in his mind in his public preaching, yet unto them he limits not his sayings, but applies all his words of blessing without restriction" (XV. 2). However, there is some indication that Chrysostom drew the later distinction between those who take the "way of perfection" in cantrast to those who view Christ's teachings as being required of all Christians. The following quotation seems to refl.ect this view: Let us not therefore suppose his injunctions are impossible: for there are many who duly perform them, even as it is .... Whence it is manifest that even now there are many who show forth the apostolical life.... Now as to the fact, that there are many who have attained unto this, we might show it even from those, who have practiced this self-denial even in our generation [XXI. 5]. Here there is the possibility that Chrysostom is referring to the monastic life. It remained, however, for a later period to heighten and sharpen this distinction.

12

History of Interpretation

At several points in Chrysostom's homilies on the Sermon on the Mount his preference for a historical and more "literal" interpretation, as opposed to an allegorical, is apparent. In his commentary on the third Beatitude he rejects the interpretation of the earth as a figurative earth. "Some say a figurative earth, but it is not this, for nowhere in Scripture do we find any mention of an earth that is merely figurative" (XV. 5). The sharpest distinction between the literal and the allegorical methods of interpretation come in Chrysostom's exposition of the fourth petition of the Lord's Prayer. Origen and others maintained that the bread referred to in this petition could not be physical bread but was a figure for Christ or spiritual bread. Chrysostom 's understanding of bread is literal. He says: But mark, I pray thee, how even in things that are bodily, that which is spiritual abounds. For it is neither for riches, nor for delicate living, nor for costly raiment, nor for any other such thing, but for bread only, that he hath commanded us to make our prayer. And for 'daily bread, ' so as not to 'take thought for the morrow.' Because of this he added, 'daily bread, ' that is, bread for one day (XIX. 8]. -Chrysostom's homilies on the Sermon on the Mount represent a moderate and restrained method of exegesis. He cautions against allegorizing and employs a more literal and historical approach. Moreover, he is on the side of those who hold that the Sermon on the Mount is relevant and applicable to every Christian. Thus to this day his homilies are fine examples of the art of combining homiletics and hermeneutics. 4

AUGUSTINE

Augustine, born in 354, is without doubt one of the greatest and most influential Christian theologians. His influence was deeply impressed upon the medieval period, and his thought lay behind many of the motifs which came to the fore during the Reformation. Even today he remains an intellectual power and an acknowledged spiritual father. Paul Tillich said that Augustine's influence not only overshadowed the next thousand years but all periods ever since. He also acknowledged his own dependence upon Augustine, saying that his own theology was more Augustinian than Thomistic [Tillich, ! History of Christian Thought, ed Carl E. Braaten (NY: Harper & Row, 1968), pp l03-4]. Much attention has been given to the leading themes in Augustine's philosophy and theology. These include: epistemology, doctrine of God, doctrine of man, election and predestination, Christology, Church and sacraments, and his theology of history. However, much less attention has been given to Augustine as a preacher and biblical exegete. For he was not only an outstanding philosopher and theologian but also a renowned preacher and interpreter of the

Augustine

13

Scriptures. Augustine's great masterpieces--the Confessions, the City of God, and On the Trinity are universally known. But his works on the Gospels, on the Psalms, and on the Sermon on the Mount have not been widely studied and commented upon. For our purposes we are especially concerned with his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount [the only full-length study of Augustine's The Lord's Sermon on the Mount (De Sermone Domini in monte) is-Adolph Holl 1s Augustins Bergpredigtexegese nach seinem Frühwerk (Vienna: Herder, 1960)]. De Sermone Domini in monte was one of Augustine's earlier works and was probably written between 392 and 396. It is divided into two books. The first book deals with Matthew 5 while the second is on Matthew 6 and 7. As the bibliography shows, it exists in a nurober of editions and has been translated into numerous languages. (It is interesting to note that Augustine is probably the first to speak of Christ's Sermon as the "Sermon on the Mount"; however, this designation did not come into widespread use until after the Reformation. ] Augustine begins The Lord' s Sermon on the Mount by referring to it as the highest standard of morality and as the perfect measure of the Christian life. The passage reads as follows: If anyone piously and soberly considers the sermon which

our Lord Jesus Christ preached on the mount, as we read it in the Gospel according to Matthew, I think that he will find in it, as regards the highest morals, the perfect measure of the Christian life. We do not venture to promise this rashly, but conclude it from the very words of the Lord himself. For the way this sermon is brought to a close makes it clear that all the precepts which have to do with shaping this life are in it . • • he indicated--sufficiently, I think-that these words which he spoke on the mountain so perfectly shape the life of those who wish to live by them that such men are rightly compared to one who builds his house upon the rock. I have said this to make it clear that this sermon is filled with all the precepts by which the Christian life is formed [I. 1. 1; references are to The Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount," ed Jeroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1973 )]. From this opening passage and what follows, it is evident that Augustine is convinced that the ethical content of the Sermon on the Mount was not a moral code for a select few but was rather a perfect rule and pattern for each Christian life. Jt was a standard for every follower of Christ and in it one could find solutions to the problems relating to human life and conduct. In his discussion of the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, Augustine is intrigued by the symbolism of numbers, especially the nurober seven which was regarded as a symbol of perfection and

14

History of Interpretation

wholeness. In 3. 10 Augustine suggests that the very number of the Beatitudes should be carefully considered. He then elaborates on the seven stages found in the seven Beatitudes, There are eight Beatitudes, however, and Augustine's explanation of this is as follows: The eighth maxim returns, as it were, to the beginning, for it shows forth and commends what is complete and perfect. And so in the first and the eighth statements the Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned.. • . For indeed it is said, 'Who will separate us from the love of Christ: will tribulation or distress, or persecution or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?' (Rom. 8:3 5 ). Seven in nurober, then, are the things which bring perfection; and the eighth illuminates and points out what is perfect, so that through these steps others might also be made perfect, starting once more, so to speak, from the beginning [1. 3. 10], In 1. 4. 12 he further expands this interpretation: The eighth maxim, which returns to the beginning and declares the__perfect man, is perhaps also signified by the circumcision on the eighth day in the Old Testament, by the resurrection of the Lord after the Sabbath, which is surely the eighth and at the same time the first day, and by the celebration of the octave of the feast which we observe on the occasion of the regeneration of the new man, and by the nurober itself of Pentecost. For to seven multiplied seven times (which comes out forty-nine) an eighth is added, so to speak, so that the number fifty is completed and we return, as it were, to the beginning. Though Augustine's sevenfold typology and his symbolism of numbers appears strained and unduly superimposed upon the biblical texts, nevertheless, this pattern affords him a method of relating various parts of the Sermon on the Mount to each other and to correlate command and promise as expressed in the Old Law and the New. In his introduction to The Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount" (pp xvii-xix], Jeroslav Pelikan notes another theme which he finds running through Augustine's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. This is a "great chain of being"--a concept well-known through Artbur 0. Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Bei : A Study of the History of an Idea (Cambridge, MA, 1936 • This theme occurs in 1. 2. 9 where the Kingdom of God is viewed as so ordered that what is distinctive and superior in man rules without resistance those other elements which are common to us and the beasts. Again in 1. 12. 34 Augustine says that all natures are beautiful in their order and by their degrees, Pelikan states that this ordering of all being becomes in Augustine's exegesis both a way of understanding the ethic of the Sermon and a weapon

Augustine

15

against the Manichaeans [P xviü]. Against Manichaean asceticism and dualism Augustine says that though our mind becomes tainted by the desire of earthly things, earth itself, in its own nature and order, is clean (2. 13. 44). In this pattern of thought one can also discern the influence of Neo-Platonism upon Augustine and his modification of its claims. There was in Neo-Platonism a tendency to devalue the world and to escape from it. Augustine rejected this disparagement toward the world and saw the experience of the divine in everything. God is the creative ground of the world in terms of love [on Augustine's relationship to Manichaeism and Neo-Platonism, see Ti.llich, A History, pp 106-9]. -Another area which needs to be discussed is Augustine's understanding of the relationship between the Old Law and the New in the Sermon on the Mount. The most extensive treatment of this problern is in Augustine's Reply to Faustus. Faustus was a renowned Manichaean leader who affirmed that acceptance of the New Testament necessitated a repudiation of the Old Testament and its God. He maintained that there was a break between the Old and the New Law because Christ did not fulfill the Old Law but rather destroyed it. The "dialogue" between Augustine and Faustus on this issue is in Books XVII-XIX of the Reply to Faustus. Faustus proceeded to offer every conceivable argument to support his claim that Christ destroyed the Law. Augustine refutes each argument and says that Christ fulfi.lled the Law in at least six different ways (for detailed discussion of these issues, see Harvey K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (NY: Harper, 1960), pp 26ff]. Among these ways were Jesus' fulfilling its Messianic predictions and bis transforming its ceremonial aspects and thus revealing their true significance. Augustine frequently resorts to the idea that the Old Law prophesied and prefigured Christ. The observances and rites prescribed by the Old Testament were symbolic in that they pOinted to Christ. He says: "Besides, they (Catholic Christians) see in Christ and the Church the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament, whethc;!r in the form of actions, or of symbolic rites, or of figurative language" (XVn. 7) [Augustine, Works, vol V, ed Marcus Dods (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872WFaustus bad argued that since Christians do not observe many of the rites of the Old Testament, therefore it is evident that Christ destroyed the Law. Not so, said Augustine, because these Old Testament rites were only types of Christ, and when he came he fulfi.lled them so that there is no Ionger any need for Christians to observe them. Thus in XIX. 13: "Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated in obedience to the Law, were types of Christ who was to come; and when Christ fulfilled them by his advent they were done away, and were done away because they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill." And again in xvm. 4: "The things in the Law and the Prophets which Christians do not observe, are only the types of what they do observe."

16

History of Interpretation

So from the above it appears that Augustine was unwilling to admit that Christ set aside the Law and that he was eager to maintain the continuity between the Old and the New in view of Faustus' radical charge that Christ did indeed destroy the Law. However, in 1. 2 of The Lord's Sermon on the Mount the break between Old and New appears much sharper. Augustine speculates on the significance of Christ going up the mountain to deliver his sermon. If there is a question as to what the mountain signifies, it

is well taken to mean the greater precepts of righteousness, for those which were given to the Jews were lesser. Yet, through his holy prophets and servants, one and the same God gave, according to a thoroughly ordered division of times, lesser precepts to a people who still needed to be bound by fear and through his Son gave greater precepts to a people who were now ready to be freed by love. John J. Jepson concludes from this passage that Augustine is firmly convinced that the Lord intended to replace the Law of the Old Testament by a new one. For this reason he emphasizes the fact that the difference between the commandments of Sinai and those of the Sermon on the Mount is not only a difference of application and permanence but also of quality [Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, tr John J. Jepson (Westminster, MD: Newman Pr, 1948), /p 5]. This seeming difference in emphasis between the Augustine of the Reply to Faustus and the Augustine of The Lord's Sermon on the Mount represents an ambiguity which McArthur says has never been resolved. He, however, leans toward the view that Augustine basically regarded the New as an extension of the Old though implicit in it [McArthur, Understanding the Sermon, pp 30ff]. The range of Augustine's exposition of the Sermon on the Mount is marked by a tension between the theoretical and the practical, between the literal and the allegorical. Adolf Holl concludes that Augustine's Sermon on the Mount manifests a well-balanced relationship between exegetical exactness and theological depth; that his chief contribution to contemporary exegesis is not in his introduction of critical questions but in his theological interpretation, and that measured by the scholarly standards of his time, Augustine's significance cannot be disputed [Adolf -Holl, Augustine Bergpredigtexegese nach seinem Frühwerk, p 66]. 5 THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD In speaking about the Middle Ages one is confronted with a two-fold temptation. On the one hand, he can characterize this period as a "Dark Age" replete with Superstition, barbarism, gross inequality, exploitation by ecclesiastical and civil powers, etc. Or, on the other hand, he can view this period as the golden age of faith and as one of the high and creative hours in Western civilization.

The Medieval Period

17

The beginning of the Middle Ages is usually dated about 600 with the papacy of Gregory the Great. The so-called high Middle Ages with its great systems of theology and scholastics, its Gothic art, and its feudal life, come about 1200-1300. With the coming of the middle of the fifteenth century this monumental structure begins to disintegrate and new and fresh motifs appear which make possible the Renaissance and the Reformation. Paul Tillich has suggested that there is one basic problern which one finds in all periods of the Middle Ages. It is that of a transcendent reality, manifest and embodied in a special institution, in a Special sacred society, leading the culture and interpreting nature. He says that tliis is the perspective which enables one to understand the Middle Ages and that without it there is no understanding [A History of Christian Thought, p 134]. The medieval period was one of change in society, philosophy, theology, the church, and the understanding of the Christian life. lnsofar as Christian ethics and the meaning of the New Law for the Christian life were concerned, a new view developed which was to have a far-reaching impact upon the medieval and post-medieval periods. Thomas Aquinas in whom the scholastic synthesis came to its climax, and who can be called the "father of Catholic theology, " wrote a "Treatise on Law" which comprises Questions 90-108 in his Summa Theologica, Part 2. 1. The most relevant sections which deal with issues raised in the Sermon on the Mount are Questions 107 and 108. In commenting on Christ fulfilling the Law, Aquinas said that the New Law fulfills the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law. He contiiDies as follows: Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in his works and in his doctrine. In his works, because he was willing to be circumcised and to fulfill the other legal observances, which were binding for the time being. . . • In his doctrine he fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Matt. 19:21 where our Lord said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old Law: One thing is wanting to thee: lf thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou hast, etc. [Summa Theologica, Pt 2. 1, Ques 107, art 2].

18

History of Interpretation

In this passage Aquinas speaks of "precepts" and "counsels of perfection," a distinction which became basic in Catholic moral theology. This led to what is sometimes called the "double standard view" insofar as the observance of the New Law is concerned. Evangelical counsels as distinguished from moral precepts or commandments are advisory directives of Christ. They are given as guides which lead to a closer approximation to perfection and imitation of Christ himself. More specifically, the evangelical counsels have traditionally been associated with the virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Obedience to the precepts or commandments is necessary for salvation, but the evangelical counsels are essential for perfection and they obtain more merit and favor with God. The classic definition of, and distinction between, the precepts or commandments and the counsels is in Part 2. 1, Question 108 article 4 of the Summa Theologica. The difference between a counsel and a commandment is that a commandment implies obligation, whereas a counsel is left to the option of the one to whom it is given. Consequently in the New Law, which is the law of liberty, counsels are added to the commandments, and not in the Old Law, which is the law of bondage. We must therefore understand the commandments of the New Law to have been given about matters that are necessary to gain the end of eternal bliss, to which end the New Law brings us forthwith: but that the counsels are about matters that render the gaining of this end more assured and expeditious. . . . Nevertheless, for man to gain the end aforesaid, he does not need to renounce the things of the world altogether: since he can, while using the things of this world, attain to eternal happiness, provided he does not place his end in them: but he will attain more speedily thereto by giving up the goods of this world entirely: wherefore the evangelical counsels are given for this purpose. Now the goods of this world which come into use in human life, consist in three things: viz., in external wealth pertaining to the concupiscence of the eyes; carnal pleasures pertaining to the concupiscience of the flesh; and honors which pertain to the pride ~ ~ according to I John 2:16: and it is in renouncing these altogether, as far as possible, that the evangelical counsels consist. Moreover, every form of the religious life that professes the state of perfection is based on these three: since riches are renounced by poverty; carnal pleasures by perpetual chastity; and the pride of life by the bondage of obedience. For a further interpretation of these questions raised in the Sermon on the Mount we turn to Cornelius ä Lapide who lived after the medieval period but who was securely rooted in its thought. Lapide, a voluminous biblical exegete, was born in Belgium in 1567. He taught Sacred Scripture for forty years, first at Louvain (1596-1616) and then at the Roman College (1616-1636). His exten-

The Medieval Period

19

tensive commentaries cover the entire Bible with the exception of Job and Psalms [references that follow are to The Great Commentary, vol I, tr Thomas W. Mossman (London: John Hodges, 1890)]. His commentary on Matt. 5-7 covers about 140 pages. In commenting on Matt. 5:17 regarding Christ's statement about fulfilling the Law, Lapide says that a part of this fulfillment of the Law consisted of Christ's adding to things of precept evangelical counsels of perfection (p 212). In Matt. 5:48 Jesus says that you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Here again Lapide speaks about precepts and counsels. He writes. You will ask whether this perfection be of counsel or of precept? I reply, partly of counsel, partly of precept. First, it is of precept that every believer in Christianity should endeavor to be perfect. • • • Hence we learn from this passage that all Christians are under obligation to be advancing towards perfection according to their state and condition. . . . This perfection is of counsel so far as it extends itself to the observance, not only of commands, but of evangelical counsels, such as voluntary poverty, chastity, and religious obedience . . . [PP 244-45). Thus there develops out of the medieval period a new way of understanding the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon and in the New Testament are to be found both precepts and evangelical counsels, and these in effect become two paths which lead to salvation. Prior to this period the New Law as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount was understood as a way that applied to all Christians. There were, however, certain passages in the Didache, in Chrysostom, and in Augustine which could be interpreted from the double standard viewpoint. Before the Middle Ages the rigorous demands of the Sermon on the Mount were largely seen as possibilities for every Christian. But now these demands are precepts plus evangelical counsels which can be voluntarily chosen by those who would aspire to perfection. The Sermon on the Mount together with such Scriptures as Matt. 19:16-30 and I Cor. 7:38 become the bases for the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Lapide introduces still another dimension in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. Not only are there evangelical counsels there but also dogma relating to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church, and the Sacraments. In commenting on Christ's fulfilling the Law he says: "For Christ added to the Law precepts of explicit belief concerning God the Three in One, and concerning Christ's Incarnation, Passion, and Redemption" (p 216). And concerning Christ' s words that not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished, Lapide writes: "All things, that is, which have been spoken concerning me and my acts, my Church and Sacraments in the Law and the Prophets" (p 214).

20

History of Interpretation

By the time of Lapide the Reformation had already occurred and his commentary reflects his disagreement with such 11 absolutists11 as the Anabaptists who maintained that Christ's references to non-swearing and nonresistance do not take away the right of defending ourselves when we are attacked by an enemy, but only forbids the desire of vengeance (p 234). By the sixteenth century new views were abroad--views which rejected the medieval exegetes and substituted other 11 evasions 11 of the demands of the Sermon on the Mount in their stead. But there were also 11 radical disciples11 who took the Sermon on the Mount literally and insisted on ordering their lives by it. To these movements we now turn. 6 MARTIN LUTHER The chief source for Luther's views on the Sermon on the Mount comes from a series of sermons on Matthew 5-7 which were delivered in Wittenberg [references are to Luther's Works, vol 21: The Sermon on the Mount, ed Jeroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Pub Hse, 1956)). Knowledge about the evolution of these sermons from the pulpit to the appearance of the finished commentary is sketchy, and this has caused some scholars to seriously question their reliability. One cannot be sure whether the editor or editors, whoever they were, did not take certain liberties with the text of Luther's sermons as delivered. Jeroslav Pelikan suggests that there seems to be no warrant however for the extreme skepticism of certain scholars regarding the reliability of this commentary. He says that there are many parallels throughout Luther's works for most of the ideas and many of the terms that appear here (p xxi). In his preface to the commentary Luther sets the stage for what is to follow. He intends to refute the false teaching of the papists and the schismatics, especially with reference to the fifth chapter of Matthew. Against these 11 perversions 11 Luther wants to present the 11 true, pure, and Christian meaning 11 of these texts. Moreover, he has no doubt that he has done so. To say the least, Luther's language is direct and forthright and he leaves little doubt as to whom he is speaking and what he is saying. The wicked devil has managed so cleverly to twist and pervert, especially the fifth chapter, making it teach the exact opposite of what it means. This chapter 11 has fallen into the hands of the vulgar pigs and asses, the jurists and sophists, the right hand of that jackass of a pope and his mamelukes. 11 With their two standards of perfection they have made salvation dependent upon works apart from faith. Thus, in the first place, Luther intends his commentary to be a polemic against the 11 squires, the jurists and sophists. 11

Martin Luther

21

Luther's second group of "heretics" are the "new jurists and sophists"--the schismatic spirits and Anabaptists. "From their crazy heads they are making new trouble out of this fifth chapter." The papists go too far to the left and keep nothing of this teaching of Christ. But the others go too far to the right when "they teach miserable stuft"' like it is wrang to own private property, to swear, to hold office as a ruler or judge, to protest or defend oneself, to stay with wife and children. The "schismatics" do not recognize any difference between the secular and the divine realm, much less what should be the distinctive doctrine and action in each realm. "From these horrible examples of both the papists and the schismatic jurists we learn and know what the devil has in mind, especially his intention to distort this fifth chapter of St. Matthew, and thereby exterminate pure Christian teaching" (pp 1-6). Besides the papists and the schismatics, Luther levels sharp criticism against the Jews. He says that the target and object of the Sermon on the Mount was principally the Jews. They were devoid of mercy; they were lenient with regard to the Sixth Commandment; they found scriptural basis for hating enemies. Their teaching and life were both imperfect and wrang because they taught that they should love only their friends, and they lived accordingly. In commenting on Matt. 6:24, Luther says that this is a judgment of Christ upon greedy people, and primarily upon his Jews. Christ attacks the doctrine and the life of the Jews, to rebuke and reform their delusions and deeds (pp 30, 33, 67, 92f, 118f, 129, 186). Luther's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and his polemic against the above "misconceptions" is centered to a large extent araund his doctrine of "the two kingdoms." By his distinction between the secular and the divine realm Luther tries to maintain the validity of the Sermon on the Mount for all Christians without making the "mistakes" of the Catholics or the Anabaptists. One of the most explicit statements of this concept is found in Luther's comments on Matt. 5:38-42. "This text has also given rise to many questions and errors among nearly all the theologians who have failed to distinguish properly between the secular and the spiritual, between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the world" (p 105). God rules the secular kingdom through secular authority and the spiritual kingdom through His Word. The Catholics confused the two kingdoms by assigning temporal authority to the pope, while the Anabaptists confused them by maintaining that the secular realm could be ruled with the Law of God, either the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. In his teaching about nonresistance Christ is not tampering with the responsibility and authority of the government, but he is teaching individual Christians how to live personally, apart from their official position and authority (p 106). This brings us to the question of the implication of the doctrine of the two kingdoms for the individual Christian. Luther distinguishes between the person and the office, for these two are present simultaneously in the same

22

History of Interpretation

man. Thus it is permissible to go to court and lodge a complaint against injustice or violence as long as one does not have a false heart. A Christian may carry on all sorts of secular business with impunity--not as a Christian but as a secular person--while his heart remains pure in his Christianity, as Christ demands. This distinction between the person and the office is set forth clearly in the following passage: Thus when a Christian goes to war or when he sits on a judge's bench, punishing his neighbor, or when he registers an official complaint, he is not doing this as a Christian, but as a soldier or a judge or a lawyer. At the same time he keeps a Christian heart. He does not intend anyone any harm, and it grieves him that his neighbor must suffer grief. So he lives simultaneously as a Christian toward everyone, personally suffering all sorts of things in the world, and as a secular person, maintaining, using, and performing all the flmctions required by the law of his territory or city, by civil law, and by domestic law [P 113]. The above distinction enables a Christian not to resist any evil, but within the limits of his office, a secular person should oppose every evil. But the plain words of Christ remain: "Do not resist evil." Luther says that this injunction applies to the disciples of Christ, whom he is teaching about their personal lives, apart from the secular government. The resistance to evil, the administration of justice, and punishment should be left to the one who holds a position in the secular realm. As for the disciples, they should try to follow Christ's commands. Another problern which arises with regard to the person and the office concerns the moral character of the person. Is the efficacy of the office enhanced or negated by the quality of the person's life? No, because the office is an order given by God, and it is not separated from His majesty. One must recognize the office as the order of God, in spite of the nature of the person. So the person may be good or evil, but the office is right and good since it does not belong to man but to God. The important and necessary thing is to distinguish between the office and the person. Just because one man is pious and twenty are wicked, you must not reject the office on account of the person. The test is not whether the person is righteous or not, but whether the tendency and purpose of the office is to praise and confirm the doctrine of faith in Christ and whether they harmonize with what he has spoken, commanded, and instituted. Whether an official is pious or wicked, neither detracts from the office nor adds to it. "We should always be guided by this certain standard, which should be applied to every kind of person, whether pious or impious, in office or out of office: Do the signs aim at praising Christ and advancing your faith?" (pp 27780}. In a Postscript to The Sermon on the Mount, Luther turns to

Huldreich Zwingli

23

the problern raised by the strong emphasis in the Sermon on works, merit, reward. He makes a sharp distinction between merit and grace. They are mutually exclusive so that when grace is being preached, certainly merit cannot be preached. One must make a distinction between faith or being a Christian and its fruit. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount is saying nothing about how we become Christians, but only about the works and fruit that no one can do unless he already is a Christian and in a state of grace. The passages in the Sermon about reward and merit are simply intended to comfort Christians. Christians will have to endure poverty, suffering, and persecution because of their faith. The insistence upon grace alone must be preserved, and then terms like "merit" and "reward" can be given to the fruit that follows. Such a statement as Matt. 5:12 where Jesus says that your reward is great in heaven, does not apply to any confidence in our own works contrary to faith, but to the consolation of Christians and believers. Luther gives the following advice concerning the question of merit and grace: Learn to give this answer regarding the passages that refer to merit and reward: 'Of course I hear Christ saying (l.Vratt. 5:3): "Blessed are the poor, for they shall have the Kingdom of Heaven"; and (Matt. 5:11, 12): "Blessed are you when you suffer persecution for my sake, for your reward is great in heaven." But by these statements he is not teaching me where to build the foundation of my salvation, but giving me a promise that is to console me in my sufferings and in my Christi an life' [p 293; see pp 285-94 for entire Postscript]. Luther's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount is no mean accomplishment. He has promulgated the doctrine of justification by faith alone against the "works righteousness" of the "papists." On the other hand, with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther maintains that a Christian can be a citizen of the Kingdom of God without renouncing his responsibility to the state. Tlms he answers the "anarchism" of the "schismatics" with their literalistic approach to the Sermon on the Mount. Whether Luther is to be regarded as a "responsible realist" or an "acculturated compromiser" is an issue which continues to divide interpreters of the Sermon on the Mount. 7 HULDREICH ZWINGLI Zwingli, who was the chief of the reformers in Germanspeaking Switzerland, was born in 1484. He was educated in Basel and later in Bern and Vienna. He became an admirer of Erasmus and by training and disposition was a lmmanist. Zwingli gave more emphasis to the Gospel as law then did Luther. The New Law of the Gospel was valid not only for the

24

History of Interpretation

moral situation but also for the state, and one of Zwingli' s central principles was that the Law of the Gospel should be the basis of the law of the state. Edward Peters points out [references are to Ulrich Zwingli: Selected-Works, ed Peters (Philadelphia: Univ ofPennsylvania Pr, 1972)] that by 1525 ZUrich was fast becoming the first urban theocracy of the Reformation (p xxii). It was, however, Zwingli' s insistence that there be this close cooperation with the civil authorities which led to the rupture in his dealings with the Anabaptists and the subsequent persecutions. The Anabaptists came to feel that Zwingli's reform was too conservative. But the precipitating factor was a Zürich cantonal decree that all children must be baptized. This led in January 1525 to a public debate between Zwingli and the Anabaptists. Out of this context there appeared in 1527 a tract containing statements by the Anabaptists and Zwingli 's refutation. The Anabaptist position was probably that of Conrad Grebel and the Confession of Fatih written by the Baptists of Bern (pp 123-25). This treatise was entitled "Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists by Huldreich Zwingli." In refuting the Anabaptists Zwingli deals with several issues which are grounded in the Sermon on the Mount. These have to do with the sword and nonresistance, judging, and swearing oaths. In examining these issues, it becomes evident that there was a radical disagreement between Zwingli and the Anabaptists and that he viewed them as irresponsible biblical exegetes as well as threats to the social order. We have seen that Zwingli sought to relate the Law of the Gospel to the laws of the state. The Anabaptists also dealt with this issue, but they proposed a solution which would have undercut the Zürich theocracy.

The first and fundamental issue on which Zwingli and the Anabaptists were inexorably divided was that of infant baptism. While this question is related to the Sermon on the Mount in terms of the nature of Christian discipleship and the tension between church and state, between the Kingdom of Christ and the world, it is not my intention to discuss the issue here. Rather let us turn to the questions of nonresistance, judging, and swearing oaths, all of which are more directly related to Jesus' pronouncements in the Sermon on the Mount. Was it possible for Christians to wield the sword in view of Christ' s directives to love enemies and to offer no resistance to evil? No, said the Anabaptists because the use of the sword is outside the perfection of Christ. However, the Anabaptists held that in the worldly order the magistry is necessary to restrain and punish evil. But in the perfection of Christ the only "sword" to be used is excommunication for the admonishing and exclusion of the sinner. "Can a Christi an use, or ought he to use, the sword against evil for the defense of the good or from Iove? This reply is therefore revealed to us unanimously: Christ teaches us to learn from himself" (p 196).

Huldreich ZWingli

25

ZWingli chaxges the Baptists with confusing the perfection of Christ with the perfection of Christians. He vehemently rejected the notion that Christians need no magistracy. Granted that a Christi an will not omit things that should be done, and he will refrain from deeds that axe not right. "But, " ZWingli says, "it is our misfortune that among men we do not find so absolute perfection, and may not hope to find that all who confess Christ axe wholly happy, as long as we beax about this domicile of the body" (p 197). He agrees with the Baptists that the sword is an ordinance of God outside the perfection of Christ and that _wherever Christians do not axrive a± perfection there is need for the sword. But Zwingli chaxges that the Baptists mean something else entirely, i. e., that "the heretical church of the rebaptized needs no sword, for it is within the perfection of Christ" (p 197). A second question dealt with the matter of whether a Christian may pronounce or give judgment in seculax matters in light of Christ's words about non-judging. Should they judge between force and force, strife and strife, in which the unfaithful differ? ZWingli now resorts to a most interesting Christological interpretation by distinguishing between Christ' s earthly mission and his office of divine judge and king. In his first coming Christ's mission was not to judge, but to save. He rejected the attempt to make him a king and there was no haxshness about him. The error of the Anabaptists is that "they do not yet discriminate between Christ' s omnipotence, providence and divinity, by which he ever governs all, and his mission which he performed here" (p 200). What the Anabaptists have done is to only see one side of Christ' s mission and that side they have made into a law regaxding nonjudgment. But Christ is now both judge and ki.ng. Thus Zwingli replies: "Let no one therefore judge. By no means. For that is to confuse divine and human law" (p 200). The third question is that of sweaxing oaths. The Baptists on the basis of Christ's injunction in the Sermon on the Mount to sweax not at all believed that this forbad all oath-taki.ng by Christians. ZWingli engages in a lengthy and sophisticated refutation of the Baptists. He analyzes the Greek, Latin, and German words for "sweax." His conclusion is that to sweax to a sacred obligation is not prohibited by the Old Testament or by Christ' s word. What Christ prohibits when he says, "Sweax not at all," is sweaxing lightly or offhand. Here no mention occurs of the oath required by public authority. So the Anabaptists have confused the issue by forbidding all sweaxing when Christ was speaking only about flippant sweaxing in daily intercourse. In commenting on Jesus' words about your yea being yea and your nay, nay, Zwingli says: "There you have it. He does not speak about our oath; he does not touch upon the forum or court or magistracy, but only upon daily conversation in our familiar intercourse" (p 212). Doubtless, Zwingli 's attempt to relate the Law of the Gospel

26

History of Interpretation

to the law of the state caused him to make such a vehement defense of oath taking against the Anabaptists. Zwingli believed that their real intention in rejecting oaths was to destroy the magistracy and its power. lf the oath is abolished, then all order is overthrown. Moreover, swearing an oath to God can be an example of a man's faith and trust in God. An oath can be a divine thing, a sacred anchor to which we flee when human wisdom can go no further. Seen from this perspective ZWingli maintained that the oath can be an act of love toward the neighbor and is in keeping with the commandment to love God and the neighbor. "Who then will dare against all the authority of Scripture to deprive the people of God of the oath?" (p 210), But after all his bitter charges against the Baptists and his defense of oaths, Zwingli's summation is remarkably libertarian. "To give in brief the sum of my opinion, I myself do not think an oath ought to be demanded, or can be demanded, without disturbing conscience, except when either all human attestation fails or the safety of a neighbor is gravely imperilled, and then only in case that in no oath that we take is the name of God blasphemed" (p 219). 8

JOHN CALVIN

The second of the great Swiss reformers was John Calvin, born in France in 1509. Because of persecution of the Protestants in France, Calvin moved to Geneva, where like Zwingli at Zürich, he established a theocracy. His best-known work is The Institutes of the Christian Religion [vol XX, The Library of Christian Classics, ed John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1960)], which became a primer for Protestants, and which has few equals in the area of systematic theology in terms of inclusiveness, conciseness, and order. Among Calvin's other writings was his Commentary on and Luke [vol I, a Harrnon of the Evangelists, Matthew Mar tr William Pringle Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 94 , which is a source for our understanding of his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. In Book ll, chapters 7-11 of The Institutes Calvin deals with the Law and the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. In chapter 8 Calvin discusses the Moral Law or the Ten Commandments, and he draws the antithesis between the Pharisees' and Jesus' respective interpretations of the Law as these are reflected in Matthew 5. The error of the Pharisees was that they believed that the Law was fulfilled as long as nothing was committed by way of outward works against the Law. Christ, however, reproved this error by declaring that an unehaste glance at a woman is adultery, and that anger in the heart and hatred are equated with murder. But this did not mean that Christ was another Moses, the giver of the Law of the Gospel, which supplied that which was lacking in the Mosaic Law. Christ did not add to the Law, but he only restored it to its integrity by freeing it and cleansing it from the

John Calvin

27

falsehoods of the Pharisees (pp 373-4). Or as he says in the Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: "We must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds any thing to the eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful expounder, that we may know what is the nature of the Law, what is its object, and what is its extent" (vol I, pp 283-4). It is evident from both the Institutes and the Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists that Calvin's intent is to emphasize the unity of the Bible and the continuity between the Law and the Gospel. In his Commentary he writes:

With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the Lav for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. . . . Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the Law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the Law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be the Author [vol I, pp 277-8). As with Luther and Zwingli, Calvin criticizes the Anabaptist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. This is particularly evident in reference to oaths. Calvin says that the Anabaptists have blustered a great deal on the ground that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion because he commands, Swear not at all. The Anabaptists are in error because they center their attention on a single word and do not understand the scope or context of Christ' s saying. Swearing is not prohibited in an cases, for when there are just reasons to demand it, the Law not only permits, but expressly commands us to swear. Calvin concludes: "Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful, which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence" (Commentary, vol I, p 295). In the Institutes, Book ll, chapter 8. 26, Calvin raises the question whether the Sermon on the Mount forbids oaths. Again, he criticizes the Anabaptists and proceeds to argue that the Bible permits and encourages certain types of oaths. He substantiates his claim with references to Paul, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, Boaz, Obadiah. In a summary statement to this section Calvin says: "Thus I have no better rule than for us so to control our oaths that they may not be rash, indiscriminate, wanton, or trifling; but that they may serve a just need--either to vindicate the Lord' s glory, or to further a brother's edification. Such is the purpose of this commandment of the Law" (Institutes, p 394). Regarding Christ's words on nonresistance, Calvin maintains that there are certain cases in which resistance is permissible.

28

History of Interpretation

While Christ does restrain our hands, as weil as our minds, from revenge, Calvin believed that one could offer resistance without revenge. Thus: ".. . when any one has it in his power to protect hirnself and his property from injury, without exercising revenge, the words of Christ do not prevent him from turning aside gently and inoffensively to avoid the threatened attack" (Commentary, vol I, p 299). Another issue that evolves from Calvin's teaching on nonviolence is that of law-suits. In light of Christ' s words, "lf any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well. .. ," are law-suits forbidden? No, because these words are not to be taken literany. None but a fool will stand upon the words, so as to maintain, that we must yield to our opponents what they demand, before coming into a court of law: for such compliance would more strongly inflame the minds of wicked men to robbery and extortion; and we know, that nothing was farther from the design of Christ... . Hence we conclude, that Christians are not entirely prohibited from engaging in lawsuits, provided they have a just defence to offer.. . . But we must remernher what I have already hinted, that we ought not to quibble about words, as if a good man were not permitted to recover what is his own, when God gives him the lawful means. We are only enjoi.ned to exercise patience, that we may not be unduly distressed by the loss of our property, but calmly wait, till the Lord hirnself shall call the robbers to account [Commentary, vol I, 299-301]. In the foregoing discussion Calvin attempts to counteract the literalism and the "ethical radicalism" of the Anabaptists, and tlms he appears to compromise the directives of Christ. While the Anabaptists may have caused Calvin to overstate a position of accommodation and compromise, the doctrine of the Schoolmen presented the opposite reaction. In Book II, chapter 8. 56 Calvin criticizes the concept of the "evangelical counsels." He writes:

These commandments--'Do not take vengeance; love your enemies, ' which were once delivered to an Jews and then to an Christians in common--have been turned by the Schoolman into 'counsels,' which we are free either to obey or not to obey. What pestitential ignorance or malice is this! ... Either let them blot out these things from the Law or recognize that the Lord was Lawgiver, and let them not falsely represent him as a mere giver of counsel [Institutes, p 419]. Calvin quotes with approval Chrysostom's contention that Christ's teachings regarding love of enemies reveal them clearly to be not exhortations but imperatives. He also notes that every one of the

The Anabaptists

29

Church Fathers regarded these as actual commandments, and that even in Gregory the Great's time this was still the case. Why then, Calvin argues, do the Schoolmen regard Christ's teachings as being a burden too heavy for Christians? At this point Calvin becomes the theologian of grace. Christ's demands are indeed hard and difficult for us in our feebleness. However, it is in the Lord and through his grace that we act virtuously. To be a Christian under the Law of Grace does not imply unbridled license outside the Law, but it means that one is engrafted in Christ by whose grace we are free from the curse of the Law, and by whose Spirit we have the Law engraved upon our hearts (see Institutes, pp 420-1). So Calvin moves back and forth between the "errors" of the Schoolmen and the Anabaptists, and thereby he appears to be Contradietory and inconsistent. He is wrestling with one of the perennial issues regarding the Sermon on the Mount, viz. how are its ethical imperatives related to Christian existence in both its personal and social dimensions? Hiltrud stadlund-Neumann has written about Calvin's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount especially in relation to the Anabaptists [Evangelische Radikalismen in der Sicht Calvins; Sein Verstandnis der Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Matth. 10) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1966)]. He concludes that Calvin's views must be seen in their historical and theological contex:t. Calvin was interested in furthering the newly-won Reformation, but at the same time he wanted to counteract the "ethical radicalism" of the Anabaptists. In this process Stadlund-Neumann says that there was the danger of one-sidedness on both sides. Calvin in his eagerness to resist the synergism he discerned in the Anabaptists, leaned toward an ethical indifferentism in reference to the Sermon on the Mount. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, manifested a works-righteousness position. His conclusion is that in their attempt to correct each other, they needed to be corrected (p 149). The main-line Reformers whom we have now discussed, each held a view of the church which regarded it as being contirruous with society. Therefore the demands of the Sermon on the Mount had to be interpreted so that the state and the social order could be maintained. For Christians were not only responsible to "follow Jesus," but also to maintain order and administer justice. The Reformation gave birth to another group who maintained that the Reformers had not gone far enough and that indeed the Reformers needed to be reformed. It is their vision and their understanding of the Sermon on the Mount that we must now consider. 9

THE ANABAPTISTS Ernst Troeltsch in his well-known cantrast between the "sect-

30

History of Interpretation

type" and the "church-type" says that the sects take the Sermon on the Mount as their ideal and that they lay stress on the simple but radical opposition of the Kingdom of God to all secular interests and institutions (The Social Teachin of the Christian Churches, vol 1, tr Olive Wyon London: Allen & Unwin, 193 , p 332 . Troeltsch's sect-type corresponds with H. Richard Niebuhr's "Christ against culture" typology. Niebuhr remarks that the Mennonites have come to represent the "Chirst against culture" attitude most purely, since they not only renounce an participation in politics and refuse to be drawn into military service, but fonow their own distinctive customs and regulations in economics and education [Christ and Culture (New York: Harper, 1951), p 56]. The Anabaptists, who are a classic example of the sectarian and Christ against culture position, found their authority and dynamic in the teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount. "Wiedertä.ufer" (Anabaptists) was original.ly a term of reproach because they wanted to "baptize over again. " Subsequently it has come to be a comprehensive designation of various groups on the Continent who in the sixteenth century refused to al.low their children to be baptized and reinstituted the baptism of believers. Their views on baptism, their insistence that the church and the state be separate, their rejection of oaths and violence, caused them to become the object of derision, persecution, and martyrdom. Among the groups that have been included under the Anabaptist designation are: Thomas Münzer and the Zwickau prophets; the Swiss Brethren; Hutterites; Melchoirites or Hoffmanites; Mennonites. These groups are diverse, and too often in the past the whole of Anabaptism has been judged on the basis of the revolutionary, antinomian, and apocalyptic excesses of Münzer, the Zwickau prophets, and the Melchoirites. However, in recent decades, thanks to the diligence and quality of Mennonite as wen as non-Mennonite scholarship, a more balanced and objective view has emerged. This trend locates the genius of Anabaptism, not in Münzer or the other apocalyptic movements, but in the Swiss Brethren and especially in Menno Simons and the Mennonites. Now the view is widely held that the Anabaptists represented an extension of the Reformation and that the free church tradition is an outgrowth of this "left wing of the Reformation." Moreover, the separation of church and state, the insistence that religion and life are inexorably related, are values which emerged from the Anabaptist tradition. Harold S. Bender suggests that the "Anabaptist vision" includes three major points of emphasis: a new conception of the essence of Christianity as discipleship; a new conception of the church as a brotherhood; and a new ethic of love and nonresistance ["The Anabaptist Vision," in The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision, ed Guy F. Hershberger (Scottdal.e, PA: Heral.d Pr, 1957), p 42]. Bender states further (p 43) that for the Anabaptists the great word was not "faith" as it was with the reformers, but "fonowing" (Nachfolge Christi). Perhaps the sharpest point of cleavage between the Anabaptists

The Anabaptists

31

and the Reformers centered around their respective views on the relationship of the Christian to the state. The Anabaptist position emerged from their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount, and their understanding of the Kingdom of God. John S. Oyer suggests that the fundamental antagonism between the Zürich reformers and the Anabaptists stemmed from their differences in emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount. Oyer feels that for Zwingli the Sermon on the Mount was incidental while for the Anabaptists it was central. Consequently, Zwingli interpreted their emphasis as an attempt to replace civil authority with the authority of the love ethic in a Christian community ["The Reformers Oppose the Anabaptist Theology," in The Recovery, ed Hershberger, pp 207-8]. The traditional Anabaptist position holds that the church and the state must be separate since the church consists only of the saints while the state is concerned with everyone in the community. The state was ordained because of sin, but the church was created for the saved. According to the Anabaptist view, true Christians must have nothing to do with the state. But this is not anarchism because the state has been ordained of God on account of sin and to restrain sin. However, the "saints" can take no part in it, and it should be left to be administered by "sinners." Thus the Anabaptists withdrew from political life, and as Roland H. Bainton states: ". . • the separation became all the more marked because the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount was taken literally and made incumbent upon all Christians" [_The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston: Beacon Pr, 1952), p 100; this work provides one of the best treatments of Anabaptism in English, with inciteful comparisons of the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and the Catholics]. Johannes P. Bachmann has made a notable study on the Sermon on the Mount in the interpretation of the Enthusiasts and of Luther. He prefers to use the term Schwärmer (entlrusiasts) rather than Anabaptists. He centers much of his analysis on the Hutterites as a prototype of the Anabaptist movement. Regarding the differences between the Enthusiasts and Luther, Bachmann writes: "I am inclined to draw the conclusion that the basic principle of interpretation must be seen in the difference between the world and the Christian community" ["The Sermon on the Mount in the Interpretation of the Enthusiasts and of Luther," STM thesis (Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1961), p 50]. Quoting from the Hutterian Chronicle, Bachmann states that for Hutter the order of government is not within the realm of Christ's perfection. The government is necessary, as we need daily bread. It is disciplinarian since most people cannot be ruled by the Word of God. But the Christian is forbidden to participate in government because the use of force is forbidden in the Sermon on the Mount. Such commands as "Love your enemies, " "Forgive us our debts," "Judge not, that you be not judged," make participation in government difficult to the extent that a Christian cannot hold a government office [Die ll.lteste Chronik der Hutterischen Brüder, pp 307, 300; quoted in Bachmann thesis,

32

History of Interpretation

pp 18-9, 28]. Thus Bachmann concludes: "The Enthusiasts normally recognize the governmental power. But they confine it to the levying of taxes and the sentencing of evildoers. Obedience often is refused when the government demands anything which is 'against God'" (pp 17-8). The Anabaptist relation to the state is integrally related to their understanding of the Kingdom of God. Robert Friedmann, writing about the Kingdom theory of the Anabaptists, says that their view of the Kingdom implies a new set of values which are best illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount. Love, forgiveness, self-surrender, hating not even one's own persecutors are values so radically different that they seem paradoxical and unrealizable to an unregenerate mind. These values point to a different dimension than that of the secular and the worldly. The Anabaptists were highly suspicious of the values of this world because they believed that they were citizens of another kingdom whose norms ran counter to those of the world ["The Doctrine of the Two Worlds," in The Recovery, ed Hershberger, p 111]. Menno Simons, in speaking about the Kingdom of Christ, wrote: "This Kingdom is not a Kingdom in which they parade in gold, silver, pearls, silk, velvet, and costly finery, as is done by the haughty, proud world. . . • But in the Kingdom of all humility not the outward adorning of the body, but the inward adorning of the spirit is sought with zeal and diligence" ["Foundation of Christian Doctrine," in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, tr from Dutch Leonard Verduin, & ed John Christian Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Pr, 1956), p 217]. The Kingdom ideal of the Anabaptists was one that related to life and to this world and not only to the world to come. They found in the teachings of Jesus a "new law" which was to be followed and taken with ultimate seriousness. In Jesus' words: "But I say to you," the Anabaptists saw something great and new. These were the commands of Jesus hirnself and not merely a clarification of the Law. They were to be obeyed and followed. Clarence Bauman points out that for the Anabaptists the proclamation of Jesus was an ethic of obedience which admitted one to the Kingdom of God. In the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount they found what man must do if he would follow Jesus. The problern whether the ethic of Jesus was possible or impossible was unfamiliar to the Anabaptists. They believed that the spirit of God empowered the believers to be obedient to Christ. Moreover, Bauman says that the Kingdom of God was not only an ideal but also a method by which the ideal could be realized. For the Anabaptists the Kingdom was not first of all an entity at the end of time but an immanent reality. The future coming of the Kingdom of God did not deter the Anabaptists from centering their attention on the righteousness of that Kingdom in the midst of the present world [Gewaltlosigkeit im Täuferturn (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp 309-10]. Harold S. Bender succinctly summarizes the above discussion: The Anabaptist vision was not a detailed blueprint for the re-

The Anabaptists

33

construction of human society, but the Brethren did believe that Jesus intended that the Kingdom of God should be set up in the midst of earth, here and now, and this they proposed to do forthwith. We shall not believe, they said, that the Sermon on the Mount or any other vision that Jesus had is only a heavenly vision meant but to keep his followers in tension until the last great day, but we shall practice what he taught, believing that where he walked we can by his grace follow in his steps ["Anabaptist Vision, " in The Recovery, ed Hershberger, p 54]. Besides the issue of infant baptism, the points of sharpest cleavage between the Anabaptists and the civil authorities related to military service and the swearing of oaths. In both areas they found in the Sermon on the Mount authority for their views. Pilgrim Marpeck, a South German Anabaptist leader, speaking of Matt. 5, said: "All bodily, worldly, carnal, earthly fightings, conflicts, and wars are annulled and abolished among them through such law . . • which law of love Christ . . . hirnself observed and thereby gave his followers a pattern to follow after" [quoted by ·Bender, "Anabaptist Vision," in The Recovery, p 51]. Menno Simons, after quoting Matt. 5:43-48 on love of enemies, said: "Behold this is the voice of Christ. All those who are his sheep will hear his voice" ["Blasphemy of John of Leiden, " in The Recovery, p 44]. Referring again to Matt. 5, Menno leaves no doubt about his absolute rejection of force and violence: Peter was commanded to sheath his sword. All Christians are commanded to love their enemies; to do good unto those who abuse and persecute them; to give the mantle when the cloak is taken, the other cheek when one is struck. Tell me, how can a Christian defend Scripturally retaliation, rebellion, war, striking, slaying, torturing, stealing, robbing and plundering and burning cities, and conquering countries? ["Reply to False Accusation, " in The Recovery, p 555]. Just as with the teachings of Jesus regarding nonresistance and love of enemies, so the Anabaptists took literally the command of Jesus concerning oaths. His injunction, "Swear not at all, " was to be obeyed without exception. Menno Simons points to the Anabaptist martyrs who refused to swear an oath even though it meant death for them. He writes: That yea is Amen with all true Christians is sufficiently shown by those who in our Netherlands are so tyrannically visited with imprisonment, confiscation, and torture; with fire, the stake, and the sword; while with one word they could escape all these if they would but break their yea and nay. But since they are born of the truth, therefore they walk in the truth, and testify to the truth unto death, as may be abundantly seen in Flanders, Brabant, Holland, West

34

History of Interpretation Friesland, etc. ["Confession of the Distressed Christians," in The Recovery, p 521; see also pp 518-9].

In the Sermon on the Mount the Anabaptists found a law or a charter for the true Christian life, and their chief concern was to pattern their lives after the teaching and example of Jesus even though the price was martyrdom. To a great degree, the "Anabaptist vision" is encompassed in the words of Hans Denck: "To know Christ truly is to follow him daily in life." 10

PROTESTANT SCHOLASTICISM TO PROTESTANT LIBERALISM PROTESTANT SCHOLASTICISM

In the post-Reformation period there developed a movement which is often referred to as "Protestant orthodoxy" or "Protestant scholasticism." The dynamic and spontaneity of the Reformation was arrested by a concern for correct dogmatic opinion and whether or not particular formulations were true to Luther or Calvin. Theological statements came to be identified with truth and took priority over the experience of faith. Ethics subsequently declined sharply, and the Sermon on the Mount and its moral implications were neglected. Or the Sermon on the Mount was seen as driving men to despair because of their sin and their inability to follow its precepts and thus preparing the way for salvation by grace alone. THE PURITANS In the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries another Protestant outlook known as Puritanism arose in England and New England. Most of the Puritans came out of the Calvinistic tradition, and they attempted to make the Bible the sole guide for faith and life. True to their Calvinist heritage, they held firm beliefs about the sovereignty of God and predestination. Moreover, the Puritans demanded express scriptural warrant for all the details of public worship, and this led them to oppose many practices in the Church of England. For example, they objected to rings at weddings, kneeling before the altar at the Lord's Supper, the sign of the cross, special dress and vestments by the clergy, argans in churches, and crosses on steeples. The church needed to be purified of these "popish" vestiges. Other characteristics of the Puritans were their emphasis on preaching and upon rigid standards of conduct, especially in regard to Sunday observance and amusements. While they produced a number of works on casuistry, the Puritans did not add any · significant contribution to the history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Denominationally, the Puritans comprised primarily Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist groups. But perhaps the most distinctive of the movements related to Puritanism were the Quakers.

Puritans-Quakers-Pietism-Wesley

35

THE QUAKERS The Quakers were started by George Fax in the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the Anabaptists, they objected to oaths and war, and found the scriptural basis for their position mainly in the Sermon on the Mount. Fox was often brought into court and even imprisoned for bis refusal to swear an oath. On one such occasion in 1665 when he was in prison, a Dr. Cradock came with a great company and asked Fax what he was in prison for. His reply was as fonows: 'I toid him, "for obeying the command of Christ and the apostle in not swearing." But if he being both a doctor and a justice of the peace, could convince me that after Christ and the apostle bad forbidden swearing, they commanded Christians to swear, then I would swear. "Here was the Bible, " I told bim, "he might if he could show me any such command." The Doctor quoted the text, "Ye shall swear in truth and righteousness." "Ay, it was written so in Jeremiah's time, but that was many ages before Christ commanded not to swear at an; but where is it written so, since Christ forbade an swearing? I could bring as many instances for swearing out of the Old Testament as thou, and it may be more; but of what force are they to prove swearing lawful in the New Testament, since Christ and the apostle forbade it?"' (Thomas Hodgkin, George Fox (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1896), pp 37-8]. In 1675 William Penn wrote A Treatise of Oaths in wbich he presented "several weighty reasons why the people called Quakers refuse to swear." In tbis work Penn appeals to Jesus' statement on oaths in the Sermon on the Mount to buttress bis argument. In the latter part he has a lengthy section containing selections, or "numerous testimonies of Gentiles, Jews, and Christians, both Fathers, Doctors, and Martyrs," on oaths. These span the period from antiquity to Penn's time and form a "history of doctrines" on oaths (for these "testimonies" see The Select Works of William Penn, vol II, 4th ed (London: Wm Pbillips, Geo Yard, l825jrepr, NY: Kraus, 1971/), pp 46-127; for another example of Penn's appeal to Matt. 5:33-37 to refute oaths, see lbid, vol 111, p 509]. Perhaps the most eminent and articulate Quaker apologist and theologian was Robert Barclay, born in Scotland in 1648. In bis Apology Barclay prefaces a rather lengthy discussion of oaths by quoting Matt. 5:33-37 and James 5:12. "Considering the clarity of these words, it is really remarkable that anyone who professes the name of Christ can pronounce an oath with a quiet conscience .•.. lf anyone bad tried to frame a blanket prohibition of anytbing, could he make it more embracing than these strictures against swearing under any circumstance?" (Barclay's Apology in Modern English, ed Dean Freiday (Alburtis, PA: Hemlock Pr, 1967--dist Friends Book

36

History of Interpretation

Store, Philadelphia, pp 412-3; for the entire discussion on oaths, see pp 412-24]. The second area in which Quakers found support in the Sermon on the Mount concerned nonresistance and war. In "Primitive Christianity Revived in the Faith and Practice of the People Called Quakers" Penn wrote: "We also believe that war ought to cease among the followers of the Lamb, Christ Jesus, who taught bis disciples to 'forgive and love their enemies, ' and not to war against them and kill them ... " [Select Works, vol III, p 510]. Barclay in his Apology holds the same uncompromising position as Penn. In a section on "Revenge and War," he develops an apology for peace by dealing with various arguments against bis position by reference to the Sermon on the Mount and other scriptural passages as wen as to the Church Fathers. After quoting Matt. 5:38-48 Barclay states: lndeed, the words themselves are so clear that I find no need to illustrate or explain them. It is easier to reconcile the greatest of contradictions, than it is to reconcile these laws of our Lord Jesus Christ with the wicked practice of war. They are plainly inconsistent. Who can reconcile 'Do not resist one who is evil' with the injunction that evil must be resisted by force? Or, 'lf someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left' with 'strike again?' Or, 'Love your enemies' with pursuit of them by fire and sword? Or, 'Pray for those who persecute you' with visiting fires, imprisonment, and even death itself upon those who not only do not persecute you, but who are earnestly concerned for your eternal and temporal welfare? Whoever has found a way to reconcile these things must also have found a way to reconcile God with the devil, Christ with Antichrist, light with darkness, and good with evil. lf this is impossible, as indeed it is, it is also impossible to reconcile war and revenge with Christian practice. Men only deceive themselves and others when they try unreservedly to do such an absurd and impossible thing [Barclay's Apology, ed Freiday, p 425]. Barclay is convinced that war is absolutely unlawful for those who would be disciples of Christ. While Jesus teaches us to love our enemies, war teaches us to hate and desiroy them. In addition to their position on oaths and war, the Quakers found in the Sermon on the Mount injunctions which undergirded their emphasis upon simplicity. Like the Anabaptists, the Quakers were literalists in their interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Here were directives which were to be explicitly followed by those who claimed to be disciples of Christ. Moreover, to this day they are recognized in the wider Christian community for their commitment to peace and service.

Puritans-Quakers-Pietism-Wesley

37

GERMAN PffiTISM The development of a scholastic Lutheranism marked by fixed dogma and intellectual conformity led to the Pietistic movement in Germany. Its two best-known leaders were Phitipp Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke. Against the scholastic tendencies, Pietism asserted the primacy of feeling in Christian experience, the active participation of laity in the life of the church, and a sharp cleavage between the Christian and the world. Spener and Francke organized small groups who met in private homes to cultivate their faith especially through common Bible study. They sought for new life and renewal as they read and studied the New Testament. The Pietistic movement did not produce any official doctrinal writings nor any principles which could be acknowledged as constituting the essence of Pietism. The Iiterature was primarily private and devotional in nature. While the Pietists did not write any treatises on the Sermon on the Mount, one must believe that it occupied a central place in their study of the New Testament. Moreover, their approach to the Christian life was consistent with a number of motifs in the Sermon on the Mount. Among these were their intense earnestness, an insistence that the Christian faith must have practical consequences, and antagonism toward worldliness. Another significant contribution of the Pietists was in the area of practical benevolence. In 1695 Francke began a school for poor children, and il1 1698 he established his farnaus Orphan Hause which had 134 children at the time of his death. The Pietistic movement has had an extensive impact upon Lutheranism. 1t was influential in the founding of such groups as the Moravians, the Methodists, and the German Baptists from whom today's Brethren groups have come. The universities of Halle and Tübingen became centers of Pietism, and such well-known figures as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher reflected elements of pietistic upbringing and learning. JOHN WESLEY In England the counterpart to German Pietism was Wesleyanism or Methodism. By the latter part of the seventeenth century the impetus of the English Reformation had largely been spent. The Church of England had settled into a state of security. Moreover, rationalistic tendencies had made deep inroads into the Church. The religious milieu was so permeated by rationalism and natural religion that it did not seriously tauch people's hearts or lives. The resurgence of new religious vitality resulted from the labors of a few men, the chief of whom were John Wesley, Charles Wesley, and George Whitefield.

John Wesley was born in 1703, the son of an Anglican priest of high church leanings. He was a distinguished student at Oxford,

38

History of Interpretation

and while there he became the leader of a group which met to deepen their lives through study and discipline. Later Wesley was sent to Georgia as a missionary. While crossing the ocean he was deeply impressed by a group of Moravians who manifested a serene faith in the midst of a terrible storm. The Georgia adventure did not produce the results Wesley had hoped for, and he returned to England. Though he was an Anglican priest he did not experience fulfillment and the spiritual certainty he desired. But one evening upon reluctantly attending a religious meeting in Aldersgate street, his life was changed and he "felt his heart strangely warmed" and that he trusted Christ and him alone for his salvation. Wesley was in agreement with the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace alone, but he added another dimension by his emphasis on the life of experienced grace, zealous moral endeavor, and growth toward perfection. Through justifi.cation God forgave sins and brought redemption. But sanctification was the process of growth initiated by justification. As Christ became real in a person's life he would grow in grace and this would manifest itself in his conduct and his works. Perhaps the most characteristic mark of Methodism was its insistence that the Christian grows in grace and increasingly manifests the perfect qualities of Christ. With this background let us now turn to Wesley's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Among Wesley's collected discourses, thirteen are given to the Sermon on the Mount, and these form a sizeable commentary. He deals with the entire Sermon, with the exception of Matt. 5:21-48. Wesley believed that the Sermon on the Mount was given to all mankind alike, and is a description of the whole of religion. It is a full prospect of the Christian life as it ought to be (Sermon XXI, intro. secs. 5-7) [references are to Wesley's Works, 3d ed, vol V (London: John Mason, 1-829); the 13 Discourses on the Sermon on the Mount cover pp 247-433]. The Sermon on the Mount is by the Son of God who came from heaven and is showing us the way to heaven (Sermon XXI, intro. sec. 3). Being free from the findings of later critical, biblical scholarship, Wesley believed that Jesus delivered the Sermon as a unified and systematic public address. Moreover, it was perfect in method and each part harmonized with the others. Consequently, it set forth exactly what our Lord intended for us to know. Wesley divided the Sermon on the Mount into three distinct branches, the first of which was Matt. 5, the second, Matt. 6, and the third, Matt. 7 (Sermon XXI, sec. 10). Beginning with the Beatitudes, Wesley held that in them our Lord lays down the sum of all true religion in eight particulars. He combined two interpretations which some held to be mutually exclusive. There were those who regarded the Beatitudes as successive stages which a Christian takes in his journey to the promised land. Others said that they belong at all times to every Christian. "And why may we not allow both the one and the other?" Wesley

Puritans-Quaker s-Pietism-Wesley

39

asks. lf we begin at the lowest of these gifts and move on up the scale to the highest, it does not mean that we relinquish the lower as we progress but that we add to and build on the foundation which is laid. The Beatitudes form a progression toward perfection. Real Christianity always begins in poverty of Spirit, and goes on in the order set forth in the Beatitudes until the Christian is made perfect (Sermon XXI, part I, sec. 1). Perfeetion then is an end toward which a Christian progresses, and the quality of the perfect life is set forth in the Beatitudes. They are the genuine religion of Jesus Christ and reflect the picture of God insofar as He is imitable by man. Wesley describes the Beatitudes in rapturous terms, and the essence of the Wesleyan movement is perhaps nowhere better described than in these words: What beauty appears in the whole! How just a symmetry! What exact proportion in every part! How desirable is the happiness here described! How venerable, how lovely the holiness! This is the spirit of religion; the quintessence of it. These are indeed the fundamentals of Christianity. 0 that we may not be hearers of it only! Nay, but let us steadily 1 look into this perfect law of liberty, and continue therein. 1 Let us not rest, until every line thereof is transcribed into our own hearts. Let us watch, and pray, and believe, and love, and 1 strive for the mastery, 1 till every part of it shall appear in our own soul, graven there by the finger of God; till we are 1holy as He which hath called us is holy, perfect as our Father which in heaven is perfect! 1 (Sermon XX:ill, part lll). In the first branch of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5) Jesus sets forth the ethical principles of true religion, those inward tempers contained in spiritual holiness which pervades the soul. In the second branch (Matt. 6) our Lord gives practical application of that contained in the first. He shows how all our actions may be made holy, and good, and acceptable to God, by a pure and holy intention (Sermon XXVI, intro. sec. 1). But purity of intention does not relate only to such religious actions as prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. It has a wider reference and must be applied in our ordinary business (Sermon XXVIII, sec. 1). Religion is not merely private; it has communal and social dimensions. But the Sermon on the Mount sets boundaries for our business. Jesus said that we are not to lay up treasures on earth, but in heaven. Commenting on Matt. 6:19-23 Wesley said: "In our business we are to attempt to succeed only to the extent that we are enabled to meet our financial obligations, to provide adequately for ourselves and for our family; but beyond this we dare not go" (Sermon XXVIII, secs. 11-12). Here Wesley charts a course between asceticism and unrestrained freedom of enterprise. He is dealing with the tension of being in the world but not of it. Finally in the third branch (Matt. 7) our Lord proceeds to

40

History of Interpretation

point out the most common and most fatal hindrances of the holiness described in the preceeding two branches. Among these are the dangers of judgment, of hypocrisy, of false prophets. But you will know them by their fruits. "We are to know the worth of any doctrine and of any life by the fruit that it produces, by the effects it has for moral power and goodness in the character and disposition of men" (Sermon xxn, part III, secs. 1-4). In the latter part of the third branch Jesus exhorts us by various motives, to break through all, and secure that prize of our high calling (Sermon XXX, sec. 1}. This branch concludes with a final parable of the two builders. Wesley urges everyone to diligently examine on what foundation he builds, whether on a rock or on the sand. He then lists entities built on sand: my orthodoxy, or right opinion which I have called faith; a set of notions I suppose more rational or scriptural than others have; on my belanging to "so excellent a Church, reformed after the true Scripture model, blessed with the purest doctrine, the most primitive Liturgy, the most apostolic form of government." These may be helps to holiness; but they are not holiness itself (Sermon XXXIII, part III, sec. 1). The foundation upon which one must build is Jesus Christ. It is when our affections proceed from a living faith in God through Jesus Christ that they are good and acceptable to God. The way to holiness and perfection as set forth in the three branches of the Sermon on the Mount has to do not so much with externals as with inward intention and moral earnestness. Or as Wesley put it: "Let thy religion be the religion of the heart. Let it lie deep in thy inmost soul" (Sermon XXXIII, part IIT, sec. 12). 11

PROTESTANT LIBERALISM

The term "Protestant Liberalism" or "Liberal theology" is a somewhat broad designation for a range of religious thought originating in the nineteenth century and reaching its zenith in this country in the decades preceding World War n. It was unified less by specifi.c doctrines than by a temper of mind and certain common motifs. Among these were the authority of Christian experience, confidence in man and his future, the centrality of Jesus Christ, social idealism, the attempt to reconcile Christ and culture. Another significant development of the liberal period was the rise of biblical criticism. The Bible was subjected to the same rigorous analysis as any other literature. As a result, many views concerning the Bible which were accepted as inviolate were subjected to doubt or outright rejection. The decisive issue concerned the significance and authority of the Bible. Acceptance of the results of biblical criticism meant the abandonment of the view that the Bible was an infallible record of divine revelation to men. In regard to the person of Christ the way was now open to clear away the "husks" and get to the "real kernel." This was the

Protestant Liberalism

41

period of the search for the "real Jesus" or the "historical Jesus." The "real Jesus" had been enshrouded in the grave clothes of dogma and orthodoxy, and he needed to be set free. Thus it was common to draw a distinction between the religion about Jesus and the religion of Jesus. It was upon the latter that liberal theology focused its attention. Another tendency was to either ignore or significantly reinterpret certain biblical events and concepts. For instance, the miracle stories were often rejected or eise rationalized. Jesus' teaching about the future aspects of the Kingdom of God was minimized. The tendency was to emphasize the Kingdom as being within man andjor to equate it with the ideal society toward which history was moving. The theological scene of the nineteenth century was dominated by two figures--Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889). Both had a profound impact on liberal theology and both were influenced by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason, written in 1781, Kant limited knowledge to the experienced world--the world of phenomena. Behind the phenomena lies reality which is not accessible to our perception. Therefore claims to knowledge must be limited to the experienced world, shaped by the rational structures of mind. Kant's views undercut any claims to knowledge of God through "pure reason." Likewise Kant attacked the traditional proofs of God's existence.

But religion can yet be established on a sound basis. It still has to do with reason, but of a different sort than "pure reason. " Its basis must be "practical reason." Kant developed this view in the Critique of the Practical Reason on 1788. While absolute knowledge of reality is unattainable by "pure reason, " nevertheless, man is conscious of a feeling of moral obligation. There is a "categorical imperative"--a moral oughtness that is universal. This moral law within is man's noblest possession, and all his action ought to be based on the universal law of duty and morality which is the law of the self and the universe. It was the first Critique that influenced Schleiermacher. He held that religion though related to reason and ethics was not determined by them. The essence of religion was a unique realm of experience--the experience of one's absolute dependence upon God. For Ritschl it was the second Critique that was most significant for opening a new possibility of recapturing the insights of the Reformation. He repudiated metaphysics and was a sharp critic of Pietism. Religion is related to experience but it is essentially moral in nature. Thus Ritschl 's theology is often referred to as the "theology of moral values."

Ritschl regarded Christianity as an ellipse with two foci, rather than a circle with one center. One focus was justification and rec-

42

History of Interpretation

onciliation. The other was the Kingdom of God. Justification and reconciliation have to do with forgiveness of sin and the redemptive work of Christ. The Kingdom of God is the organization of humanity through action inspired by love. "The Christian idea of the Kingdom of God denotes the association of mankind--an association both extensively and intensively the most comprehensive possible--through reciprocal moral action of its members, action wbich transcends all merely natural and particular considerations" [The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconsiliation, 2d ed, tr H. R. Mackintosh, A. B. Macaulay (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p 284). One of Ritschl' s positive contributions was bis rediscovery of the centrality of the Kingdom of God. His close identification of the Kingdom of God with a social etbical ideal was a central emphasis of liberalism and was to have a pronounced effect upon the development of the "social gospel" in Protestantism. Ritschl made a significant impact upon the theology of the latter part of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries--so much so, that one can speak of a "Ritschlian school. " Perhaps the two most outstanding members were the eminent Berlin church bistorian, Adolf von Harnack, and the Marburg theologian, Wilhelm Herrmann. ADOLF VON HARNACK

In the winter semester of 1899-1900 Harnack delivered a series of lectures at Berlin wbich were published under the title Das Wesen des Christentums [references are to Eng ed, What Is Christianity? tr Thomas B. Saunders (NY: Rarper & Row, 1957)]. As the title suggests, Harnack proposed to delineate what was truly essential in Christianity. His intention was to clear away the husks so that the kernel could be exposed. Behind the changing forms of Christianity there is that wbich is unebanging and wbich is valid for all time. The place to look for this permanent element is in the Synoptic Gospels; for they contain the plain picture and content of Jesus' teacbing. But one must be careful not to confuse the framework in wbich the Gospel is presented with that which is essential. In the Synoptic Gospels one reads about miracles, demons, and the catastropbic end of the world, but these arenot central to Christianity. The essence of Christianity is to be discerned in the personality of Jesus and in bis teacbing. The teaching of Jesus may be grouped under three heads. Each is of such a nature as to contain the whole, and hence can be exhibited in its entirety under any one of them. These are: the Kingdom of God and its coming; God the Father and the infinite value of the lmman soul; the bigher righteousness and the commandment of love (p 51). In reference to the Kingdom of God, Harnack recognized that in the Gospels there is the idea of two kingdoms--of God and of the devil-and that at some future time the devil would be defeated and God would reign. Jesus shared tbis view with his contemporaries;

Protestant Liberalism

43

he grew up with it and retained it. But if one wants to know what the Kingdom of God and its coming meant for Jesus, he must read and study the parables. The Kingdom of God comes by coming to the individual, by entering into his soul and laying hold of it.... It is the rule of the holy God in the hearts of individuals. . . . From this point of view everything that is dramatic in the external and historical sense has vanished; and gone, too, are all the external hopes for the future.... It is not a question of angels and devils, thrones and principalities, but of God and the soul, the soul and its God [P 56]. As we shall see later, it was this immanent view of the Kingdom of God which was rejected by Weiss and Schweitzer. Rudolf Bultmann, writing from this later eschatological perspective, said of Harnack: "Harnack somehow never clearly saw nor understood the eschatological character of the appearance of Jesus and of his preaching of the imminent advent of the Kingdom of God" (p x). Jesus' teaching on the higher righteousness and the commandment of love shows conclusively that the Gospel is an ethical message. He severed the connexion between ethics and external forms and ritual. "In all questions of morality he goes straight to the root, that is, to the disposition and the intention" (p 71). That is the meaning of the higher righteousness. It is that which will stand when the depths of the heart are probed. Harnack relates the higher righteousness to the Sermon on the Mount as follows: "A large portion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount is occupied with what he says when he goes in detail through the several departments of human relationships and human failings as to bring the disposition and intention to light in each case, to judge a man' s works by them, and on them to hang heaven and hell" (p 72). The moral principle can finally be reduced to one root and to one motive--love. It can take the form of love of the neighbor or of the enemy. Though Jesus freed morality from all alien connections which included public religion, nevertheless, there is a point where religion and morality combine. In view of the Beatitudes it may best be described as humility. Jesus made love and humility one. Humility has a religious dimension because it is characterized by receptivity, by the expression of inner need, by prayer for God's grace and forgiveness. It is the opening of the heart to God. In the Beatitudes religion and ethics are joined because the poor in spirit and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are also the peacemakers and the merciful. In these four Beatitudes one discerns the nature of the higher righteousness. In a succinct summary statement Harnack writes: In tlms expressing his message of the higher righteousness

and the new commandment of love in these four leading

44

History of Interpretation thoughts, Jesus defined the sphere of the ethical in a way in which no one before him had ever defined it. But should we be threatened with doubts as to what he meant, we must steep ourselves again and again in the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. They contain his ethics and his religion. united at the root, and freed from all external and particularistic elements [PP 73-4]. WILHELM HERRMANN

Wilhelm Herrmann was born in 1846. He studied at Halle where he lived for two and a half years in the home of Friedrich August Tholuck. There he came in contact with Martin Kähler and met Albrecht Ritschl who significantly influenced his thought. In 1889 Herrmann became a professor at Marburg where he remained until his retirement in 1916. He was a renowned teacher and among his students at Marburg were Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann. Like Harnack, Herrmann interpreted Jesus' concept of the Kingdom of God as being a present and inner reality. Thus he said that Jesus must have meant that the beginning of the Kingdom of God is given to men in the stirrings of such righteousness and such trust or religion in their hearts. Jesus took seriously the language of the Old Testament and understood the Kingdom of God as the rule of God. But this rule of God man may see and experience. Above all, the Kingdom of God is the rule of God in man's own heart [Herrmann, Systematic Theology, tr Nathaniel Micklem, Kenneth A. Saunders (NY: Macmillan. 1927), p 46]. But Herrmann emphasizes another side of Jesus' world view, and in this he anticipates Weiss and Schweitzer. Jesus hel.d a view of the world that left him no concern for the future of human society. For him the world was near an end and he saw the beginning of its destruction approaching. The final judgment was at hand, and his aim was to prepare souls for this coming glory. Therefore Jesus' teachings are colored by this eschatological outlook. This situation raises a two-fold barrier for us. In the first place, we do not share Jesus' standpoint and are not greatly affected by the idea that the end of the world is approaching. Secondly, circumstances in which we see the promise of a better future, were to Jesus harbingers of ruin. We are in the position that we do not feel ourselves face to face with the end of the world, but are confronted with innumerable social Obligations. Therefore Jesus' admonition not to be anxious cannot be taken literally because of the different type of world we live in. We are delivered from this dilemma through the findings of historical research and modern biblical knowledge. And this is a great gain because it frees us from trying to take the Catholic monastic way toward perfection and also from the enthusiastic Protestant followers of Leo Tolstoy. If then the words of Jesus be understood as due to his mental

Protestant Liberalism

45

outlook, they will not obscure the fact that the pursuit of power and possessions, as protected by law, is a moral Obligation. Unless in particular circumstances, love requires us to sacrifice these things, it is our moral duty to do battle for the conditions under which we exist on earth [Adolf Harnack & Wilhelm Herrmann, Essays on the Social Gospel, tr G. M. Craik (London: Williams & Norgate; NY: Putnam, 1907), p 211). The upshot of Herrmann's view regarding Jesus' utterances, especially those in the Sermon on the Mount, is that we cannot possibly comply with them because we do not share his conception of the universe. Jf this is the case, are we to conclude that Jesus' teachings are irrelevant for us? Or how does the Sermon on the Mount relate to us? In his Ethik [(TÜbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901)), Herrmann says that there are three possible ways of interpretingthe Sermon on the Mount. First, we may regard Jesus' teachings in the Sermon as exaggerations set forth in a moment of passion. Secondly, they are new and more rigid laws to regulate human behavior. Thirdly, they cannot be seen as rules that have general validity and are applicable in every situation,. but they are demands that may come into force at any given moment (p 132). Their meaning lies in the fact that Jesus wishes to open the way for a right disposition (Gesinnung) within. The term "Gesinnung" is one of Herrmann's key categories in his Ethik [see especially pp 12642). To try to obey the Sermon on the Mount as general rules would divert us from following Jesus. Such a way would shut us off from his living mind and his mysterious greatness. The teachings of Jesus are illustrative of a new set of mind and of the will, a disposition grounded in Jesus' person and power. At the end of a paper read by Herrmann at the Evangelical Social Congress at Darmstadt in 1903 we have a good summary of his "Gesinnungsethik": We must accept the directions of Jesus, neither as enforced and arbitrary laws, nor yet as mere Outbursts of emotion,. but as the effulgence of his mind. They are not cords he has wound about us, but clues to direct us to freedom ...• Least able, however, to understand the true force of the moral ideas of Jesus--the unity of his mind--are the numbers of religious people who are practically tied to the principle of pharisaic morality, according to which certain rules may teach us the nature of the good, and a will that is ready to be bound by them may be accounted good. Yet even among all these, every one will at length understand his thoughts, who draws so near to the person of Jesus that he is conscious of his power to deliver, and becomes free for service as he was [Harnack & Herrmann, Essays on the Social Gospel, pp 224-5).

46 12

History of Interpretation FRIEDRICH AUGUST THOLUCK

In 1826 Tholuck became professor at Halle University where he remained until bis death in 1877, except for a short appointment as embassy chaplain at Rome from 1827-1829. At Halle Tholuck was influential in imparting a pietistic and evangelical emphasis to both students and faculty. He was the author of a number of commentaries on various biblical books. His most learned and elaborate exegetical work was Die Bergpredigt [references are to Eng ed, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, tr R. Lundin Brown (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869)] originally published in 1833. There are few if any expositians of the Sermon on the Mount more scholarly and extensive than Tholuck's. This classic nineteenthcentury work has not had its twentieth-century counterpart. Tholuck was a noted Iinguist, and this is evident in Die Bergpredigt since Hebrew, Greek, and Latin references abound. His acquaintance with the relevant writings of the Church Fathers, of the medieval period, and of bis immediate predecessors and contemporaries is truly remarkable. Tholuck's characteristic method of interpretation is to examine a given passage linguistically and historically, and in so doing to make .his own interpretation of its meaning and significance. Die Bergpredigt is, in addition to its exegetical significance, a section-by-section history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Tholuck's approach to the Sermon on the Mount is not that of the detached critical scholar. Rather he is an evangelical apologist who is concerned about the relation of the Sermon on the Mount to the evangelical doctrine of salvation. The demands set forth in the Sermon can be attained through faith in Christ, but he only partially alludes to this in the Sermon itself. Though the work of redemption was only to be unveiled by the completed work of Christ, nevertheless, the Preacher of the Sermon on the Mount is hirnself this redeemer in person. Allusions to Christ the redeemer are unmistakable. Thus those Beatitudes which speak of spiritual poverty, of hunger and thirst after righteousness, point to him who invites men to hirnself because bis yoke is easy and bis burden light. And if Christ requires a righteousness beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees, does this not presuppose a faith in him through whom strength is given to fulfill what he requires? "Christ could not have designated bis coming as the fulfillment of all the Messianic expectations, had he come only to increase the demands of the Law, without also giving an increased measure of strength" (p 41). Tholuck believes that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed primarily to the Disciples and secondarily to the people. Christ's object in giving the Sermon was to exhibit hirnself as the fulfiller of the Law and to enunciate the magna charta of bis new kingdom (p 14). Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount seems to be the counterpart of the lawgiving on Mount Sinai. It sets forth the Law of Moses in a wider and deeper aspect. In the eight Beatitudes Tholuck sees an ethical order.

The

Friedrich August Tholuck

47

first four are of a negative character in- that they express the spiritual desire which marks participation in the Kingdom of God. The three following are positive and set forth the attribures of character required in members of the Kingdom. The eighth shows how the world will react toward members of tlie Kingdom. The Beatitudes are essentially identical because each of them comprises all spiritual blessings. One must not view them as a progression from one stage to another which excludes the rest, or in advancing to one, leaves the others behind. Consistent with his high Christology, Tholuck proposes another hermeneutical explanation which is especially relevant to the Beatitudes. In analyzing Christ's sayings we dare not assume that no other meaning is implied in his words than one within the compass of his hearers and familiar to them. Many of Christ's sayings far transcended the limits of the occasion on which they were given and embraced the whole future of the Kingdom of God. They went beyond the thought range of his contemporaries and possessed a dimension which would be measured only by him and by posterity. But it does not follow that Christ speaks only to posterity. While he went beyond the sphere of vision of his hearers, he had points of contact with those to whom he spoke. Thus the interpreter must hold in dialogue both the temporal and trans-temporal dimensions of Christ' s teachings. The first Beatitude illustrates the foregoing principle. To his hearers the idea of the poor was no new idea since those who gathered round him were from the lower classes. The idea of physical poverty is carried over into the sphere of poverty of the spirit, and those poor are pronounced blessed who are also sensible of their spiritual poverty (pp 65-6, 71). Matt. 5:21-48 with its antitheses between the Mosaic Law and the "New Law" of Christ presents difficulties for the interpreter insofar as their contemporary relevance is concerned. Here Tholuck introduces another hermeneutical principle which holds that the spiritual, and not the literal, interpretation is the true one. Since the spirit of an author is expressed by means of the word and the letter, the interpreter must naturally begin there. But there is a gradation here which one dare not ignore. The letter is important as an element in the word, the word as a member of the sentence, the sentence as a part of the organic whole. Consequently, in order to understand the word one must gain an understanding of the whole work, and the correctness of the interpretation of a sentence and an isolated clause must be determined by the consistency of that interpretation with the idea of the whole word. Tholuck believed that it was the departure from this hermeneutical principle that was responsible for "false, merely literal, and hence unscriptural" views of such commands as those in verses 28, 34, 39-42. This erroneous exegesis was to be found principally in the Quakers. This is why they have rejected oaths and resistance to evil. Such literal obedience doubtless arises from reverence for Christ's words, but it fails to realize that clinging to the particular lowers the general, and veneration of the letter leads to a depreciation of the spirit.

48

History of Interpretation

So the sayings of Christ, especially in this section of the Sermon on the Mount, must be interpreted according to the whole scope of Christian doctrine, according to the spirit of Christ (pp 163-5). In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord's mode of address is that of the popular orator. The language is not that of the school nor of the lawyer. Hence it is faulty for us to make minute distinctions and to take the letter of what he says in a strict literal sense, and to press it unduly. Christ is using examples and is speaking figuratively; and example is seldom of universal force, a figure has seldom universal application. The Sermon on the Mount is a striking model of example and figure, and in order to interpret it correctly one must not "wander from the green meadows of a lively and spiritual interpretation into the barren tracts of scholastic abstractions" (pp 165-6 ). Though Tholuck's "spiritual interpretation" of the Sermon on the Mount avoids literalism, it is open to charges of relativism and subjectivism. Tlrus Tholuck writes: "The popular orator gives forth his utterance in concise and terse language, trusting to the common sense of his hearers as his interpreter, which with intuitive skill curtails or supplements his sayings, according as the intention of the speaker and the connection of the discourse require" (p 165). At any rate, Jesus' words about oaths and nonresistance cannot be taken as absolute prohibitions. In the circumstances in which we are actually placed, the use of the oath is necessarily conceded in certain cases (p 253). And as for the commands in verses 39-42, they are to be regarded as only concrete illustrations of the state of mind and heart required--as extreme cases, which no doubt, under certain circumstances, may occur (p 269). The passage of time has not altered the significance of Tholuck's Die Bergpredigt. It is an admirable synthesis of exegetical and historical scholarship, and is a rich source for any serious study of the Sermon on the Mount. 13

SfllREN KIERKEGAARD

Kierkegaard was a gadfly and an irritant to the prevailing thought patterns of the nineteenth century, and it was only in this century that he came to be recognized as the creative genius he was. With his insistence that truth is subjectivity and his penetrating insights into the meaning of existence, Kierkegaard has exerted a profound influence upon twentieth-century philosophy and theology, as well as such areas as art, literature, psychology. In his description of selfhood, the concept of anxiety occupied a central place. Consequently, Jesus' admonition about not being anxious, and his description of the birds and the lilies in the Sermon on the Mount motivated Kierkegaard to write three separate interpretations of Matt. 6:24-34. The first of these, Hvad vi laere af lilerne paa marken og af

S~ren

Klerkegaard

49

himmelens fugle (What We Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air) was publlshed in 1847 and consists of three discourses. The first discourse is entitled: "To Be Satisfied with the Fact of Being Human." The lilies one is asked to consider are not rare, potted plants, but those which, though uncared for, grow in profusion. They succeed without striving. They are beautiful without assi.stance. Jf the lily could speak to an anxious person would it not say: "Why do you thus wonder at me? Should not the fact of being human be equally as glorious?... Should what is true of poor me not be true of the fact of being human, which is the marvel of creation?' The Gospel of Suffering and the Lilies of the Field, tr David F. Swenson, Lillian M. Swenson ·nneapolis: Augsburg Pub Hse, 1948), p 176; references are to this ed]. In this first discourse Klerkegaard tells one of his charming parables. It is about the lily and the bird. There was once a lily which stood alone near a little brook. It was beautiful, carefree, and happy. One day a little bird visited the lily and kept returning. Instead of rejoicing in the lily' s beauty the bird emphasized its own freedom and the lily's bondage. The bird told stories about other places where unusually magnificent lilies grew in great abundance. Such brilliant scenes surpassed all description, and the bird tried to humiliate the lily and to question by what right it was really called a lily in comparison with such magnificence. The lily became troubled and was no Ionger satisfied with itself. It began to lament why it was not born in another place under different circumstances and why it was not born an imperial lily because the bird had said that the imperial lily was the most beautiful of all lilies. Finally the lily and the bird agreed that the next morning a change should take place. Early the next morning the bird came and with its beak began to cut away the soil from the lily's roots. When this was accomplished, the bird took the lily under its wing and flew away. The intention was that the bird would take the lily where the magnificent lilies bloom and plant it there. But on the way the lily withered (pp 178-81). Klekegaard says that the lily is the human and that from the lily we learn to be satisfied with the fact of being human, and not to be disturbed about the distinctions between man and man. "All worldly concern is at bottom due to the fact that a man is not satisfied with the fact of being human, that by means of the comparison he anxiously desires to be different" (p 184). This same theme is illustrated by another parable. A stock dove lived in a forest. On a nearby farm lived some tarne doves. The stock dove frequently exchanged thoughts with a pair of the tarne doves. One day the tarne doves talked about the necessities of life. The stock dove reported it had no worries because it let

50

History of Interpretation

each day carry its own troubles. The tarne doves said that their future was assured by the grain stored by the rich farmer. Thereupon the stock dove began to worry about its future and like the farmer began to gather provisions. Eventually the stock dove decided to j oin the tarne doves and flew into the barn. But at night when the farmer locked the dovecote, he at once discovered the strange dove. The next day he killed it. As with the lily, Kierkegaard says that the stock dove is man and that anxi.ety is man's sin (pp 188-91). In the second discourse Kierkegaard turns attention to "The Glory of Our Common Humanity." Man's glory consists of his being created in the image of God. The fact that man is spirit is his invisible glory. The bird has no worldly care for the necessities of life because it lives only in the moment and has no consciousness of eternity. But with man the situation is otherwise. His anxi.ety is grounded in the juncture of the temporal and the eternal in man's consciousness. "The temporal and the eternal can painfully touch one another in numerous ways in the human consciousness, but one of the contacts at which the man particularly winces is the care for the necessities of life" (p 215). Another mark of the glory of our common humanity lies in man's capacity to work. Work is the perfection of the human and through working, the human resembles God, who also works. In the final discourse Kierkegaard deals with "The Happiness of Our Common Humanity Consists in First Seeking the Kingdom of God." He extends the analogy of man and nature. The life of nature is brief, melodious, blooming, but every moment is characterized by the prey of death, and death is the stronger. The blessedness of being a man and that which distinguishes him from nature is man's capacity for choice. Lilies and birds have no choice, but man does. "For it is indeed true that the one happiness still con- · sists in choosing rightly, but the choice itself is still the glorious condition" (p 228). Moreover, man must choose between God and the world--between God and Mammon. This choice cannot be evaded, and it has eternal consequences. Man is called to seek first God's Kingdom which is the name of the eternal happiness which is promised to the human and before which the beauty and peace of nature pale and disappear. God's Kingdom is righteousness. 1t is both "above the heavens" and "within you." "God's Kingdom is still that which is to be sought first, but which shall also endure through all eternities to the last" (p 236). In 1848 Kierkegaard published Christelige taler [references are to Christian Discourses, tr Walter Lowrie (London: Oxford Univ Pr, 1940)]. Part I consists of a commentary on Matt. 6:24-34 and is entitled "The Anxi.eties of the Heathen." Kierkegaard contrasts the heathen and the Christian by drawing analogies from the lilies and

S9ren Kierkegaard

51

the birds and examines these differences under the following headings: the anxiety of poverty, the anxiety of abundance, the anxiety of lowliness, the anxiety of highness, the anxiety of presumption, the anxiety of self-torment, the anxiety of irresolution, fickleness, disconsolateness [for a discussion of each of these "anxieties," see PP 17-93]. From the lilies and the birds we learn to know the anxieties of the heathen which the lilies and the birds do not have even though they have corresponding needs. But the lilies and birds likewise show us that the Christian should receive God's gifts and have no anxiety for the morrow. This is to be a Christian, which, of course, these lesser creatures can never be (pp 13-5). The third work, Lilien paa Marken og Fu eln under Himlen (The Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air, was written in 1848 and published in 1849. Three lessons are to be learned from the lilies and the birds--silence, obedience, and joy. To be silent is an art; it is to seek first the Kingdom of God. Silence is also the mood of prayer. As the true man of prayer becomes more earnest in his praying, he has less and less to say and in the end becomes silent. He had supposed that to pray is to speak; he learned that to pray is not merely to be silent but to hear (Christian Discourses, p 323). The second instruction is obedience which is set forth in "No man can serve two masters." The lilies and the birds exemplify unconditional obedience and are united in perfect unity. Man is to learn from them how to be absolutely obedient. It was man's sin which (by not willing to serve one master, or by willing to serve another master, or by willing to serve two or many masters) disturbed all the beauty of the world. Man's sin of disobedience created a discord in a world where everything was good and harmonious (Christian Discourses, p 346). Finally, from these creatures of nature man can learn joy. The lilies and the birds are unconditionally joyful and are joy itself. And yet they also have sorrow because all of creation is subjected to corruption. But in spite of this, the lilies and birds are joyful. The key to joy is to cast all our care upon God, entirely, absolutely, as the lilies and birds do. What they do unconsciously man must learn to do consciously. Then it is that man can make this prayer of joy: "Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen" (pp 347-56). In these three expositians on Matt. 6:24-34 one discerns quite clearly several Kierkegaardian motifs. However biblically grounded they are, they expose Kierkegaard's existential thought. Man's existence is characterized by the necessity of choice before God, is marked by anxiety, and is fulfilled by a "leap of faith" which is made possible by the grace of God. Such is the nature of the Ser-

52

History of Interpretation

mon on the Mount. It is not an objective discussion of truth, but is more like a finger that continues to point at the existing believer before God. 14

LEO TOLSTOY

Tolstoy is perhaps best known as a great novelist who wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina. But he was also a moralist and social reformer and an absolutistic interpreter of the Sermon on the Mount. His career was stormy and controversial. Because of his unorthodox views he was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church in 1901. After 1877 he renounced his literary ambitions and turned increasingly to religious and social critical themes. His religious and political anarchism finally led to a break with his family who would not follow the life he wanted to live. Just before his death in 1910 Tolstoy left home in search of a refuge where he could live quietly and come closer to God. In Ispoved' (My Confession), written in 1878-79, Tolstoy poignantly relates his religious pilgrimage. He tells of the moral and spiritual suffering he endured in searching for answers to the meaning of existence. He attempted to maintain a rational approach, but he found little help in the writings of philosophers, theologians, and scientists which he systematically examined. Finally, Tolstoy turned away from his circle of the rich and learned and began to cultivate the acquaintance of the believers among the poor, the simple and unlettered. It was among these peasants that he found the clue to life and experienced a "conversion." He describes this "awakening" as follows:

I began to examine closely the lives and beliefs of these people, and the more I examined them, the more did I become convinced that they had the real faith, that their faith was necessary for them, and that it alone gave them a meaning and possibility of life.... I began to love these people. The more I penetrated into their life, the life of men now living, and the life of men departed, of whom I had read and heard, the more did I love them, and the easier it became for me to live. Thus I lived for about two years, and within me took place a transformation, which had long been working within me. What happened with me was that the life of our circle, --of the rich and the learned, --not only disgusted me, but even lost all its meaning. All our acts, reflections, sciences, arts, --all that appeared to me in a new light. I saw that all that was mere pampering of the appetites, and that no meaning could be found in it; but the life of all the working masses, of all humanity, which created life, presented itself to me in its real significance. I saw that that was life itself and that the meaning given to this life was truth, and I accepted it [My Confession, vol XIII The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy, tr Leo Wiener (NY: AMC Pr, 1968), pp 5961].

Leo Tolstoy

53

In }881-1882 Tolstoy wrote Soedinenie i perevod chetyrekh Evangelii (The Four Gospels Harmonized). After making a study of the New Testament he concluded that the whole Christian tradition is contained in the four Gospels. In composing his harmony, Tolstoy translated the Gospels from the Greek. He included the Gospel of John since his aim was not historical, philosophical, or theological. His main intent was to find the meaning of the teaching. Previous harmonies were all equally unsuccessful because they were harmonized on a historical basis. Tolstoy differentiates his harmony from the previous ones as follows: I leave the historical meaning entirely alone, and harmonize only in the sense of the teaching. The harmonization of the Gospels on this basis has this advantage, that the true teaching represents, as it were, a circle, of which all the parts determine their mutual significance, and for the study of which it is immaterial from what place we begin. In studying in this manner the Gospels, in which the historical events of Christ's life are so closely connected with the teaching, the historical consecutiveness appeared quite immaterial to me, and for the historical consecutiveness it made no difference to me which harmonization of the Gospels I took as my basis [The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, vol I Complete Works, p 18]. As for the central teaching of the Sermon on the Mount in Tolstoy's Four Gospels Harmonized, it can be summarized in five rules. Having warned his hearers that he did not destroy the Law, but only gave a few additional little rules, the fulfillment of which gives the Kingdom of God, Jesus expresses these five rules, namely: Be not angry; commit no adultery; swear not; go not to law; war not. Jesus says, Here are five rules, but they all come down to one. This rule is, What you would that others should do to you, do you to others. This rule takes the place of the former Law [vol I Complete Works, p 272; these five rules, with their fulfillment in the Golden Rule, are elaborated upon, pp 287, 299-300]. Tolstoy's most extensive exposition of the Sermon on the Mount is found in V ehern moß viera (My Religion), written in 1884. This is an autobiographical work in which Tolstoy seeks to systematize his religious beliefs. From his childhood Tolstoy was most impressed with the teachings of Christ concerning Iove, meekness, humility, self-renunciation, and retribution of evil with good. But he found that the Orthodox Church was more concerned with dogmas than with the above teachings, and this confused and repelled him. What repelled me from the church was the Strangeness of the church dogmas, and the recognition and approval given by the church to persecutions, capital punishment, and wars, and the mutual rejection of various creeds; but what shattered my

54

History of Interpretation confidence in it was that indifference to what to me seemed to be the essence of Christ's teaching and the bias for what I regarded as inessential [My Religion, vol XVI Complete Works, p 8).

The solution to his doubts Tolstoy found in the Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount. He believed that nowhere did Christ give so many moral, clear, intelligible rules as in the Sermon on the Mount. "As I read these rules, it seemed to me that they had special reference to me and demanded that I, if no one else, should execute them" (My Religion, p 10). A new world opened before Tolstoy when he came to the realization that verses 38 and 39 of Matt. 5 were the key to the whole. These verses about nonresistance to evil causes everything which had been dark to become clear. He understood for the first time that the center of gravity of the whole thought was in the words, Do not resist evil, and that what follows is only an explanation of the first proposition. The concept of nonresistance now filled Tolstoy's horizon, for he had discovered the key which unlocks everything. The first thing that startled Tolstoy after he experienced this "rebirth" was the contradiction between nonresistance and the courts. "The courts do not forgive, but punish; they do not do good, but evil, to those whom they call enemies of society" (My Religion, p 25). Thus it turns out that Christ hirnself must have rejected the court system. Mter a further apologetic section on nonviolence, Tolstoy discusses in detail (My Religion, pp 63-94) the five commandments which he had elaborated upon more briefly in The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated. With this he concludes his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount in My Religion. The fullest treatment of Tolstou's concept of nonviolence is in Tstarstvo Bozhie vnutri vas [The Kingdom of God Is Within You, vol XX Complete Works] written in 1893. It is here that he levels his harshest criticism against the state and other social institutions. In a word, Tolstoy's religious and political anarchism are most evident here. Tolstoy accuses the Orthodox Church of being preoccupied with creeds, sacraments, theologies, the worship of persons and images and neglecting good works. For Tolstoy it is an eitheror choice--either the Sermon on the Mount or the creed. He writes: The Sermon on the Mount, or the symbol of faith: it is impossible to believe in both. And the churchmen have chosen the latter: the symbol of faith is taught and read as a prayer in the churches; and the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from the Gospel teachings in the churches, so that in the churches the parishioners never hear it, except on the days when the whole Gospel is read [P 78].

Leo Tolstoy

55

Tbis same sharp distinction between theology and ethics is evident in the following: The churches are confronted with a dilemma--the Sermon on the Mount, or the Nicene Creed--one excludes the other: if a man sincerely believes in the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, and with it the church and its representatives, inevitably lose all meaning and significance for him; but if a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the church, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives, the Sermon on the Mount will become superfluous to him. And so the churches cannot help but use every possible effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount and to attract people to itself [Kingdom of God, vol XX Complete Works, p 87]. As in The Four Gospels and in My Religion, Tolstoy refers to Christ' s five commandments in the Sermon on the Mount. He is convinced that though they express an eternal ideal, nevertheless men can to a degree reach them in our time (Kingdom of God, p 104). The Sermon on the Mount not only stands in opposition to the established church, but also to the state. He writes: Christianity in its true meaning destroys the state.... For every sincere and serious man of our time it is quite obvious that true Christianity--the teaching of humility, of forgiveness of offenses, of love--is incompatible with the state, with its magnificence, its violence, its executions, and its wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing the state, but even destroys its very faundatians [P 242]. So Tolstoy has equated nonviolence with the essence of Christianity and has viewed it as an ideal which is possible both for individuals and society. For him the Sermon on the Mount (and especially the command of nonviolence) was a law binding on all men and bringing all human institutions under judgment. In the beginning of The Kingdom of God Is Within You Tolstoy addresses those (especially within the church) who had criticized My Religion. He challenges them to answer a series of questions. These are the questions he deals with in the rest of his work, but they also give us a good summary of his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. There can be no doubt that for Tolstoy the answer to these questions is unequivocal and uncompromising. These are his questions: Did Christ actually demand from his disciples the fulfillment of what he taught in the Sermon on the Mount? And if so, can a Christian, remaining a Christian, go to court, taking part in it and condemning people, for seeking in it defense by means of violence, or can he not? Can a Christian, still remaining

56

History of Interpretation

a Christian, take part in the government, using violence against his neighbors, or not? And the chief question, which now, with the universal military service, stands before all men, --can a Christian, remaining a Christian, contrary to Christ' s injunction, make any promises as to future acts, which are directly contrary to the teaching, and, taking part in military _service, prepare hirnself for the murder of men and commit it? -(Kingdom of God, p 35). 15

CONSISTENT ESCHATOLOGY JOHANNES WEISS

As we have observed, the influence of Kantian philosophy led liberal theology to closely identify Christianity with the experiential and the ethical. While both Harnack and Herrmann acknowledged the eschatological aspect of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom of God, nevertheless they believed it could best be defined as the rule of God in the hearts of men. Ritschl' s view of the Kingdom tended to be more socially oriented. Jt concerned man's working with Jesus to-realize the moral life in society. At any rate, as the nineteenth century drew to a close, there was widespread agreement that the Kingdom of God was both immanent in individual religious experience and was to be gradually realized as an ideal society within history. In 1892 there appeared a modest-sized volume entitled Die Predi Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Jesus' Prodarnation of the Kmgdom of God , by Johannes Weiss. This work was to have a profound impact upon liberal theology and upon subsequent interpretations of Jesus and his teachings. Rudolf Bultmann recalls how Julius Kaftan in his lectures on dogmatics in Berlin said, "If Johannes Weiss is right and the conception of the Kingdom of God is an eschatological one, then it is impossible to make use of this conception in dogmatics" [Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (NY: Scribner's, 1958), p 13]. Weiss had been a student of Ritschl (who was also his fatherin-law). Through his studies in theology and the New Testament, Weiss came to reject the prevailing opinions of liberal theology regarding the Kingdom of God. The view of the Kingdom of God which he found in the Gospels was at variance with that of Ritschl and the Ritschlians. It was not primarily an ethical entity which could be described in terms of religious experience nor could it be equated with the gradual development of the good society. Rat her, for Jesus, the Kingdom of God was an apocalyptic and eschatological event which God would soon consummate. The Disciples were to pray for its coming, but men could do nothing to establish it. Not even Jesus could do this. Only God could, and He must take control. In the meantime Jesus had to battle the devil and to prepare his followers to await and prepare for the Kingdom through repentance, humility, and renunciation [Jesus' Prodarnation of the King-

Consistent Eschatology

57

dom of God, tr Richard H. Hiers, David L. Holland (Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1971), pp 129-30). Weiss perhaps best summarized the basic differences between hirnself and his liberal contemporaries concerning the Kingdom of God in these words: "The Kingdom of God as Jesus thought of it is never something subjective, inward, or spiritual, but is always the objective messianic Kingdom, which usually is pictured as a territory into which one enters, or as a land in which one has a share, or as a treasure which comes down from heaven" (Jesus' Proclamation, p 133). This then was Jesus' view of the Kingdom of God insofar as historical schalarship could determine it. But this did not answer the question as to how the church should subsequently understand the Kingdom. Weiss was intent upon letting the historical data speak for itself, and in so doing he ruptured the harmonious relationship that had existed between contemporary New Testament exegesis and systematic theology. He had broken with the New Testament exegetes, but he still found Ritschlianism to be the best theological alternative. Weiss was willing to accept the findings of historical criticism, but he was not willing to make them his own nor to insist that the church in all times had to adhere to Jesus' interpretation of the Kingdom. For Weiss the liberal view of the Kingdom of God was probably the best for the Christianity of his time. Like Schweitzer, he found that Jesus' concern for an eschatological kingdom had little if anything to say about modern ethical issues. We do not share Jesus' eschatological outlook. Weiss writes: "We no Ionger pray, 'May grace come and the world pass away, ' but we pass our lives in the joyful confidence that this world will evermore become the showplace of the people of God"\Jesus' Proclamation, p 135). But ü we cannot get ethical directives from the historical Jesus with his apocalyptic vision, we can still rely upon the guidance of the exalted Christ, "who were he among us today, would lead us in reorganizing the world according to the ideas which God reveals to us through history" [Weiss, Die Nachfo e Christi und die Predi der Gegenwart (G~ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895 , p 164; quoted in Intro, Jesus' Proclamation, p 23). But there are also hints in the synoptic Gospels as to what Jesus might do were he to reappear among us. He would not simply repeat the Sermon on the Mount nor wait quiescently for the coming of the Kingdom of God. Rather, he would work for its realization in history and would encourage us through our preaching and instruction to do all we can to awaken it. [For a detailed discussion of Weiss' Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiches Gottes and its relationship to various contemporary and subsequent biblical, ethical, and theological issues, see Jntrod to Jesus' Proclamation, pp 1-54.] ALBERT SCHWElTZER Weiss was soon joined by a formidable ally in the person of Albert Schweitzer. He used the termkonsequente Eschatologie

58

History of Interpretation

("consistent" or "thorough-going" eschatology) to set forth the view that the whole of Jesus' public work is to be explained by his eschatological beliefs. Schweitzer acknowledged his agreement with Weiss, but Weiss had not gone far enough. Schweitzer writes: So toward the end of the century the view which sees an eschatological character in the preaching of Jesus and his Messianic self-consciousness begins to make headway, as developed by the Heidelberg theologian, Johannes Weiss, in a book written with wonderful clarity, The Preaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God. Scientific theology cherishes, nevertheless, in secret the hope that it will not, after all, have to admit everything that Weiss propounds. In reality, however, it has to go even further than he, for he comes to a stop halfway. He makes Jesus think and talk eschatologically without proceeding to the natural inference that his actions also must have been determined by eschatological ideas [Out of My Life and Thought, tr C. T. Campion (NY: Holt, 1949), p 48]. According to Schweitzer, the Jesus presented in the Gospels was not the historical Jesus of nineteenth-century liberal theology-a Jesus who was a high-souled teacher of morality who sought to establish the spiritual reign of God in men's hearts and thus induce a reign of justice on earth. Rather, he is a stranger and an enigma to our time, an unworldly, apocalyptic figure who "comes to us as one unknown, without a name." Jesus shared the eschatological and apocalyptic world-view of late Judaism. The Kingdom which he announced was not to be founded and realized in the natural world by hirnself and his followers, but was to be expected as coming with the almost immediate dawn of a supernatural age. The imminence of the Kingdom and the urgency of the hour is seen in Matt. 10 where the mission of the Twelve is recorded. Matt. 10:23 is for Schweitzer one of the key verses in his interpretation of Jesus: ". . . for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of Man comes." (Schweitzer's position is described more comprehensively in my "The Problem of the 'Historical Jesus' from Schweitzer to Bultmann, " unpub STM thesis, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, PA, 1964, pp 28-75.] Schweitzer's well-known characterization of the Sermon on the Mount is that of "interim ethics." These radical and uncompromising teachings were given in that brief interim before the Eschaton in order to prepare the Disciples for the advent of the Kingdom. The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount are therefore the ethics of repentance. The new morality which detects the spirit beneath the letter of the Law equips one to enter into the Kingdom of God. The Beatitudes reflect the same point of view. They define the moral disposition which justifies admission into the Kingdom. Thus Schweitzer says:

Consistent Eschatology

59

As repentance unto the Kingdom of God the ethics also of the Sermon on the Mount is interim ethics. In this we perceive that the moral instruction of Jesus remained the same from the first day of his public appearance unto his latest utterances, for the lowliness and serviceableness which he recommended to his disciples on the way to Jerusalem correspond exactly tQ the new moral conduct which he developed in the Sermon on the Mount: they make one meet for the Kingdom of God.... Whosoever at the dawning of the Kingdom is in possession of a character morally renovated, he will be found a member of the same. This is the adequate expression for the relation of morality to the coming Kingdom of God (The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, tr Walter Lowrie (NY: Dodd, Mead, 1914), pp 97, 99). Jesus' understanding of the Law is likewise viewed from the perspective of "consistent eschatology." Schweitzer describes Jesus' attitude toward the Law as a sort of detached indifference. He did not declare hirnself either for it or against it. He felt no obligation to declare it binding or non-binding. This was of no practical importance for Jesus. His real concern was the new morality, not the Law. It was holy and inviolable only insofar as it pointed the way to the new morality. Consequently, Jesus assumed that the Law would come to an end at the beginning of the Messianic .Kingdom. Both Jesus and John the Baptist demanded repentance and an absolute and inward ethic, instead of meticulously observing the minute details of the Law. This was the most obvious line of conduct in light of the nearness of the coming Kingdom. They had no reason to attack it because they knew that it would pass away with the coming of the Kingdom. After quoting Matt. 5:17-18, "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished," Schweitzer concludes: "Jesus thus clearly affirms that the Law is only valid until the beginning of the Kingdom of God. How, indeed, could he have held that it would retain its validity for the men of the resurrection, the partakers of the Kingdom" (The Mysticism of Paul· the Apostle, tr William Montgomery (NY: Seabury Pr, 1968), p 190]. In the last of the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:11-12) Jesus pronounces blessing upon those who are persecuted because their reward will be great in heaven. Schweitzer says that it is generally believed that when Jesus speaks of persecution which his disciples shall encounter, he is predicting what they must endure when they are left alone after his death. But this is totally false, for when he speaks like this he is referring to the affliction which his followers must bear with him before the dawn of the Kingdom. Consequently, the last Beatitude rightly proclaims that the Disciples have reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad, for in what they must endure is revealed their right to membership in the Kingdom of God. While they are still afflicted by the power of this world their reward is

60

History of Interpretation

already prepared in heaven (Mystery of the Kingdom of God, pp 21920). Let us finally turn to Schweitzer's interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. In this prayer Jesus teaches the believers to ask for nothing else than the content of the Kingdom of God. It is under such forms as the hallowing of God' s name, the rule of his will upon earth, forgiveness of sins--with the addition of a petition for deliverance from "temptation." "Temptation, " Schweitzer says, refers to the pre-Messianic Tribulation. However, the fourth petition, "Give us this day our daily bread," seems to be at variance with the eschatological perspective. It seems to break entirely from the theme of the rest of the Prayer. Moreover, it appears to contradict the sayings which follow about taking no thought for eating and drinking (Matt. 6:25-34). In Matt. 6:33 Jesus says that they should concern themselves only with the Kingdom of God. How then, Schweitzer asks, is it conceivable that, amid these petitions for the one thing needful, Jesus should bring in one which gives expression to the forbidden anxiety about earthly needs? At this point Schweitzer analyzes the Greek words in the fourth petition and finds that they mean: "Our bread, the coming [future] bread, give us this day." He concludes: The natural translation 'Our bread, the Coming bread, give us today' makes sense of the fourth petition and, in fact, exactly the sense which is required to fit in with the remaining petitions. Like these it asks for one of the blessings of the coming Kingdom of God; in this case, the food of the Kingdom.... The petition therefore means: The future food of the Kingdom of God, give us even today. In other words: Let Thy Kingdom immediately come, in which we shall eat the food of the Messianic feast [Mysticism of Paul, p 240). Truly Schweitzer was a towering figure, and though his consistent eschatology is excessive, there is a logical consistency about it that enabled him to explain far more of the words and deeds of Jesus than liberal theology had been able to do. Eschatology has come to occupy a central place in contemporary theology. Likewise, after Weiss and Schweitzer, no one can any Ionger study and interpret the Sermon on the Mount without coming to grips with the eschatological issue. Archibald M. Hunter says of Schweitzer: "Nevertheless, his excesses should not blind us to the great services he rendered scholarship. Two things he did. He compelled scholars to face squarely the problems of eschatology and to produce better solutions of them than he had done. And second, he put the life of Jesus in its true setting" (The Works and Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1950), p 13].

Dispensationalism 16

61

DISPENSATIONALISM

The period following the American Civil War until the beginning of the twentieth century was one of marked upheaval and change. This was the time of industrialization and the beginning of urbanization. Moreover, Darwin' s theory of evolution presented a serious threat to traditional theological views concerning the authority of the Bible and the nature of man. Protestant liberalism attempted to affect a rapprochement between the "abiding truths and the changing categories." However, those of a more conservative bent were not so ready to accept these innovations. They were intent upon defending and preserving "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. " Out of this milieu there developed the Bible and prophetic conference movement which sought to defend the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God and to relate it both to present and future happenings. This movement developed its own distinctive norms or biblical interpretation, and from it emerged a hermeneutical scheme which has come to be known as dispensationalism. The basic rationale of dispensationalism is that sacred history is divided into a number of dispensations--usually seven, in each of which God deals with man on a different basis. Most critics of dispensationalism regard it as a modern movement which began with John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the nineteenth century. Those who hold the dispensationalist view resent the notion that dispensationalism is recent, unorthodox, or separatist. They acknowledge their dependence upon Darby. However, they hold that neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system. They merely systematized motifs which go back to the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr, lrenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Pierre Poiret, John Edwards, lsaac Watts are regarded as forerunners of contemporary dispensationalism [for more detailed discussion of its origins see Charles C. Ryrie's competent apology for dispensationalism, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Pr, 1965), pp 65-78]. The year 1909 is an important date in the development of dispensationalism because of the publication of The Scofield Reference Bible [NY: Oxford Univ Pr, 1909], which represents the classic expression of the movement in America. Scofield occupies a position of prominence and authority second to none among dispensationalists. C. Norman Kraus speaks of "Scofield's synthesis" and says of him: Scofield's significance in American dispensationalism lies in the fact that he sought to put the more tenuous theological concepts into concrete outline form. . . • If we ask whether he represents a development in dispensationalism which is vital to the larger theological picture, the answer is no •..• His predecessors were the innovators, the radicals; he has become the conservative, the scholastic (Dispensationalism

62

History of Interpretation in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond: John Knox Pr, 1958), pp 129-30; the book is a good balanced view of the movement by a non-dispensationalist].

Before turning to the dispensationalist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, it is necessary to describe its "theology of history" as set forth in the dispensations. First, however, one must define "dispensation." Scofield's definition, in his Reference Bible, is widely accepted and can be regarded as the classic one: "Ä dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (p 5). In the Introduction to the Reference Bible he says: "The Dispensations are distinguished, exhibiting the majestic progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity, 'the increasing purpose' which runs through and links tagether the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end of eternity." The number of dispensations varies, but generally seven is regarded as the "correct" number. [For a description of modern dispensati-onal outlines, see Kraus, Dispensationalism in America, pp 25-44.] Again let us use Scofield's scheme as our model, He says that the Scriptures divide time, which is the period from the creation of Adam to the "new heaven and a new earth" of Rev. 21:1, into seven unequal periods which are usually called "dispensations" (Eph. 3:2), although they are also called "ages" and "days." These periods are characterized by some change in dealing with mankind, or a portion of mankind, in respect to the questions of sin and man's responsibility. Scofield suggests that five of these dispensations have been fulfilled and that we are probably living toward the close of the sixth. The seventh, and last, is before us. These seven dispensations are as follows: (1) Man Innocent, which extended from the creation of Adam to the expulsion from Eden; (2) Man under Conscience, from the Expulsion through the Flood; (3) Man in Authority over the Earth, after the Flood to Babel; (4) Man under Promise, from Abraham to Egyptian bondage; (5) Man under Law, from Wilderness of Sinai to the dispersion of the Jews which still continues; (6) Man under Grace, begun by the sacrificial death of Christ. The first event in the closing of this dispensation will be the descent of the Lord from heaven, when sleeping saints will be raised and, tagether with believers then living, caught up "to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thess. 4:16-17). Then follows the brief. period called "the great tribulation." After this will occur the personal return of the Lord to the earth in power and great glory, and the judgment which introduces the seventh and last dispensation. (7) Man under the Personal Reign of Christ. After the purifying judgments which attend the personal return of Christ to the earth, he will reign over restored Israel and over the earth for one thousand years. This is the period commonly called the Millennium. The seat of his power will be Jerusalem, and the saints, including the saved of the dispensation of grace, viz. , the Church, will be associated with him

Dispensationalism

63

in his glory. Satan is "loosed a little season" and gathers the nations to battle against the Lord and his saints. The great "white throne" is set, the wicked dead are raised and finally judged, and then come the "new heaven and a new earth"--eternity begun [C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (NY: Fleming H. Revell, 1907), PP 13-8]. The problern to which we now turn concerns the relationship of the Sermon on the Mount to the dispensational pattern. [For critical studies from a non-dispensational, evangelical perspective, see Tal D. Bonham, The Demands of Discipleship; The Relevance of the Sermon on the Mount (Pine Bluff, AR: Discipleship Book Co, 1967), pp 55-80; Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), pp 286-92; for a defense of the dispensationalist view, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp 105-9.] Perhaps the most frequent criticism of the dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount centers araund the question of the Sermon's contemporary relevance. Bonharn characterizes the. dispensational viewpoint as "the postponed evasion of the Sermon's relevance," and Henry states that "there is no secure ground for postponing the relevance of the Sermon on the Mount to a future eschatological age." Are these charges valid? Let us examine some of the dispensational interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. In Scofield's notes on the Sermon on the Mount in The Scofield Reference Bible we read: The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the Kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the Kingdom of Heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution.... The Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and transfers the offense from the overt act to the motive.... The Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church [PP 999-1000]. Scofield's analysis and that of those who followed him is based on several presuppositions. For one, the Sermon on the Mount is identified with law and does not contain the Gospel. The dichotomy between law and gospel is well expressed by Donald Grey Barnhouse. He points out that as Christians we do not get a lamb and have it killed on an altar by a priest, nor do we follow literally other ceremonialism of the Law. These demands of the Law were fulfilled by the death of Christ, and we are now free from them. This is precisely the case with certain passages in the Sermon on the Mount. Any attempt to apply them to our present-day civilization will end in confusion. So Donald Grey Barnhouse says: The offer of the Kingdom as made in the Sermon on the Mount is now definitely past. The age of grace runs its

64

History of Interpretation course. We are not to make the mistake of trying to force the Sermon on the Mount to a literal fulfillment today. It will be fulfilled literally, but not until the age in which we live comes to its close and the Lord Jesus shall be dealing once more with his people Israel [His Own Received Hirn Not (NY: Fleming H. Revell, 1933), pp 38, 40-1).

Barnhouse, in keeping with Scofield's views, discerns a specific example of the absence of grace in the Sermon on the Mount in the petition on forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer. We pray for an imperfect forgiveness because our forgiveness is conditioned upon our readiness to forgive, and such forgiveness comes from a "sinful heart." But in the "grace" section of the New Testament there is another prayer which rises from a "thankful heart that feels and knows the grace of God." It is Eph. 4:32: "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Barnhouse concludes: "But in the days when he spoke, when law yet reigned, and grace had not come into effect there could be no such full forgiveness from God" [His Own, p 49]. (Scofield, in commenting on Matt. 6:12, says: "This is legal ground. Cf. Eph. 4:32, which is grace. Under law forgiveness is conditioned upon a like spirit in us; under grace we. are forgiven for Christ's sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven" [Reference Bible, p 1002].) William L. Pettingill reflects this same cleavage between law and gospel when he writes: "You will search in vain in Matthew for a statement of the Gospel of the Grace of God" [Simple Studies in Matthew (Harrisburg, PA: Fred Kelker, 1910), p 11). In a later reference, Pettingill rejects the liberal emphasis upon the teachings of Jesus and their neglect of Paul. He states: "The Sermon on the Mount is not the way of salvation for the sinner.... The Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and the Christian is not under law, but under grace" [Simple Studies, pp 57-8]. Lewis Sperry Chafer is an influential interpreter of dispensationalism and has written a seven-volume systematic theology. Commenting on the Sermon on the Mount, he says: The treatment of this discourse by writers of the past and present often reveals the extent of their comprehension of the present divine economy under grace. Apparently, the root difficulty is the failure to recognize what is rightfully a primary and what is rightfully a secondary application of this teaching. When the primary application is given to this Scripture, it is usually on the supposition that the Church is the Kingdom and therefore passages related to the Kingdom are addressed to her. Let it be dogmatically asserted at this point that those who hold such views either have failed to recognize the hopeless, blasting character of the law which this discourse announces and from which the Christian has been saved, or they have failed to camprehend the pres-

Dispensationalism

65

ent position and perfection of Christ which is the estate of every believer. Apparently the two great systems--law and grace--become so confused that there could be no order of thinking [Systematic Theology, vol V (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Pr, 1948), p 97; for additional exposition of Chafer's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, see "The Teachings . of Christ Incarnate," Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (1951), 391-413]. For Chafer, the rules of human conduct are not to be found in the Sermon on the Mount which is for the future age. The rules of conduct for the present age appear in the Gospel of John, the Acts, and the Epistles of the New Testament [Systematic Theology, vol V, p 98]. From the above it is evident that dispensationalism finds no "church truth" in the Sermon on the Mount but law directed primarily to the future Kingdom. Consequently, a second presupposition logically follows. The Sermon on the Mount does not apply to the "church age"--the dispensation of grace, but to the coming kingdom age. Barnhouse asks: "When will the Sermon on the Mount become effective?" His answer: "R will take the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ, coming not as the meek and lowly Savior, but as the Lord of power and glory, to enforce righteous principles upon the earth" [His Own, pp 45-6]. Pettingill and Chafer present the same views. Pettingill asks a question and gives his answer. "If, then, the Sermon on the Mount be neither the way of lüe for the sinner, nor the rule of life for the believer, what is it? The answer is that the Sermon on the Mount is the code of laws of the Kingdom of Heaven, which Kingdom, though for the time being rejected and held in abeyance, will one day be set up on the earth" [Simple Studies, p 58]. And Chafer: "R therefore stands as well founded that the Sermon on the Mount both by its setting in the context and by its doctrinal character belongs for its primary . application to the future kingdom age" [Systematic Theology, p 99]. A study of dispensationalist writing gives one the preponderant view that the Sermon on the Mount is future oriented. However, this is not wholly the case. Since the Sermon on the Mount is a part of the inspired Word of God, like all Scripture, it is applicable to believers in this age. Scofield points out that there is a beautiful moral application to the Christian because it always remains true that the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, the merciful will be blessed [Reference Bible, p 1000]. Following Scofield, Pettingill says that we shall find many eternal principles expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. These are set forth in several of the Beatitudes as Scofield had shown. But Pettingill makes another interesting comment about the relevance of the Sermon on the Mount. He states that the Sermon is of great value, and one reason for its value is that we who are now members of Christ's body, the Church, are destined to reign with Christ over the Kingdom. "Therefore we ought to have lively interest in the Laws of the Kingdom" [Simple Studies, p 59]. Chafer says that a secondary application of the

66

History of Interpretation

Sermon on the Mount to the Church means that lessons and principles may be drawn from it. He immediately qualifies this statement by saying that as a rule of life, the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to the Jew before the cross and to the Jew in the coming Kingdom, and is therefore not now in effect [Systematic Theology, p 97]. Charles C. Ryrie, in a spirited defense of dispensationalism against its opponents, maintains that the dispensationalist does recognize the relevance and application of the teachings of the Sermon to believers today regardless of how much nondispensationalists want to make him say otherwise. But the primary fulfillment of the Sermon and the full following of its laws are applicable to the Messianic Kingdom. This position, Ryrie feels, is in keeping with other conservatives' interpretation of Scripture, He says further that the dispensationalist in no way disregards the importance of the ethical teachings of the Sermon for today, and it gives proper recognition to the ultimate purpose of the Sermon (Dispensationalism Today, pp 107-8]. Ryrie concludes his Sermon on the Mount apology as follows: Thus the dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount simply tries to follow consistently the principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation, It results in not trying to relegate primarily and fully the teachings of the Sermon to the believer in this age. But it does not in the least disregard the ethical principles of the Sermon as being not -only applicable but also binding on believers today [P 109]. The dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount has produced lively debate in fundamentalist, evangelical, and liberal circles. Whether Ryrie's judgment, expressed above is an acceptable conclusion, will doubtless provide "ammunition for subsequent campaigns." 17

CARL STANGE

Carl stange (1870-1959) was educated at the universities of Halle, G?lttingen, and Leipzig. He was a professor of systematic theology at the universities of Königsberg, Greifswald, and G?>ttingen. As an interpreter of Luther, stange emphasized the theocen-, tric character of his thought in opposition to the ethical idealism of the Ritschlians. He also made significant contributions to the discussion of philosophy, ethics, and dogmatics. Stange' s interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount appears in a lengthy essay entitled "Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt" which was published in volume 2 of Zeitschrift für s sternafische Theolo ie in 1924 (page references are to this essay . He states that the Sermon

Carl Stange

67

sets forth the ethical ideal of Jesus. Stange manifests a close affinity with Wilhelm Herrmann in his emphasis upon the inner intention (Gesinnung} instead of the outward act. This was the basic difference between Jesus and the Pharisees because they believed that the exact observance of the Law was the way to perfection, while Jesus held that the observance of the Law was worthless if it did not represent the fruit of the intention (pp 38-40). Kant's concept of the good will is in keeping with the intention of the Sermon on the Mount. Our moral consciousness shows us a value which transcends all the values--the absolute value of the good intention (p 41}. Thus the ethic of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount is a Gesinnungsethik--an ethic of the good Gesinnung. The Pharisaical ethical system found a more widespread expression in the medieval church with its veneration of saints, its monasticism, its sacramentalism, and its indulgences. Stange proceeds to analyse and criticize the Catholic "double standard" view with its precepts and evangelical counsels. The problern with Catholicism was that though it rightly recognized that the commands of Jesus were impossible for men to keep, it held that a select group could obtain special merit through their fulfillment. But in this view they ran counter to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount (pp 44-8}. A second, but equally false, interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is Tolstoy's. For him the real problern was, How can we make the culture Christian? How can we attain a Christian society? How can we reform the culture in keeping with the guidelines of the Sermon on the Mount? But, according to Stange, this is not the problern of Jesus. While Tolstoy had a widespread influence upon bis time and while he served to sharpen men's consciences, his failure was that he concentrated on the outward fulfilling of Jesus' demands. In this he was in the same sphere as Catholicism. Tolstoy was right that the Sermon on the Mount applied to all men, rather than to a select few. But he er red in believing that everyone could fulfill the commands of Jesus. In this respect the Catholic Church had a much deeper insight than Tolstoy because it held that the mass could not keep the demands of the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy displayed a childlike optimism in believing that man by bimself could do the good if he only knew it (pp 48-56). The optimistic ethical idealism which followed the tradition of Kant declared: You can because you ought. But Stange says that the essence of the moral problern is not the ideal of action but the conversion of the will. Man's destiny is determined not by the political and economic spheres, but by the transformation of the will, The ethical demand does not give one the strength to do good, but it shows us our inability to do the good. Consequently the formula: You can because you ought, must be replaced by another: You ought, but you cannot (pp 56-9}. For Stange the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to make

68

History of Interpretation

one conscious of his sin and his inability to do the good. It is not the concept of the ideal which is at the center of the Christian ethic, but the idea of sin, conversion, and confession. The humanistic ethic is the ethic of the ideal while the Christian ethic is the ethic of the consciousness of sin (p 63). The ethic of Jesus heightens one's ethical self-comprehension. Consequently, it leads from imperative to judgment, from ideal to penitence (p 64). Therefore the transformation of the will and of the intention is brought to the center of the ethical discussion. So the last word of moral consciousness is consciousness of our sins. It is at this point that we discern the sharpest cleavage between Jesus' ethic and ethical idealism (p 67). But consciousness of sin points beyond judgment and penitence to consciousness of, and communion with, God. Wherever consciousness of sin is awakened, there faith in God is alive. When we reach the highest degree of ethical understanding, we come to a consciousness of God. The ethical life process leads to communion with God (p 69). For Stange the solution to the problern posed by the Sermon on the Mount is Christological. Jesus' preaching about penitence is integrally related to his messianic consciousness. He has a communion with God that he makes possible for us. Fellowship with God is grounded in the presence of Jesus, and this is the preliminary condition which makes the fulfillment of his commands a possibility (pp 70-1). The fundamental character of Jesus' proclamation was not ethics, but his reference to God (p 73). It is through the life of God that we find the realization of the good. The way to the good is for man the way to God (p 74). The ethics of Jesus arises from his God consciousness. Therefore one understands Jesus' ethic only when he considers the God consciousness above the ethical consciousness. Only in setting the God consciousness over the ethical consciousness does the moral life attain its completion (p 74). Stange's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount has been criticized by Hans Windisch because it is a "purely theological solution" which neglects questions of form and origin. Windisch is more in sympathy with Tolstoy because he believes that Tolstoy's insistence upon the literal fulfillment of Jesus' commands represents a return to the original meaning of the teaching. While Stange offers an attractive theological interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, Windisch questions whether it reflects the Sermon' s actual intention. One positive observation which Windisch makes is that Stange seeks a solution to the problern raised by the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount within the Sermon itself The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, tr s. MacLean Gilmour Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1951), pp 61, 118, 59). Kaarle S. Laurila summarizes Stange's position as one which

Gerhard Kittel

69

maintains that the demands of the Sermon on the Mount are unrealizeable by natural man. The Sermon convincingly sb.ows us that we are incapable of following Jesus' commands apart from a total conversion of the will or a new birth which is accomplished by God through the Holy Spirit. "In this sense," Laurila says, "is the way of men to the good the way to God." This, however, still does not deal adequately with practical implications of the Sermon on the Mount. Laurila feels that Stange's answer to the dilemma raised by the Sermon is that we must have the intention in every circumstance to act in accordance with the demands of Jesus, insofar as this is possible in this imperfect, evil world. But it appears to Laurila that this is the same answer that has been given before and that Stange does not adequately resolve the issue [Leo Tolstoi und Martin Luther als Ausleger der Bergpredigt (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1944), p 92]. 18

GERHARD KITTEL

Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948) was a professor of New Testament at Kiel, Leipzig, Greifsward, Tiibingen, and Vienna. He concentrated on the Jewish background of the New Testament and concluded that the Jewish element prevailed over the Hellenistic in the composition of the New Testament books. He is perhaps best known as the editor of the voluminous and monumental Theologische Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (1933- ). In his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, Kittel stands close to Stange and they are often mentioned together. His essay "Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums" appeared in 1925 in Zeitschrift ftir systematische Theologie, volume 2 (page references are to this essay). With slight revision, this essay was incorporated in Die Probleme des alästinischen ätjudentums und das Urchristentum 1926 .

As the title of Kittel's essay suggests, he explores the relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and the ethics of Judaism. He is convinced that the ethics of Jesus have their roots in Judaism and Old Testament piety. Kittel proposes the thesis that there is not a single one of Jesus' ethical teachings of which it could be said, a priori, that it has any claim, as an individual precept, to absolute originality (p 577). The basic difference between Jesus and the rabbis is not in the novelty of the former's demands, but in the absolute intensity of Jesus' ethics and in his concentration upon the religious dimensions of morality in contradistinction to ritualism and an ethic tied to nationalism. The demand of Jesus is an absolute one. What he commands, he does so unqualifiedly (pp 579-82). The Sermon on the Mount with its absolute demands, has significance not because it provides us with a practical program for the ideal development of mankind. Rather it belongs to the very essence

70 /

History of Interpretation

of its demand that men do not fulfill it, and cannot fulfill it, as long as they live as sinful men in a sinful world. It is no accident that the Beatitudes were placed at the beginning of the Sermon. The demand that follows was not to be fulfilled in all its detail by men who prided themselves on their human achievement but by the poor in spirit, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (pp 583-4). How shall one understand the Sermon on the Mount with its "absurd, paradoxical, and exaggerated demand?" Kittel suggests that it originates in the self-consciousness of Jesus and by his mission. Moreover, it is the rule of God. This accounts for its absoluteness and uncompromising character (pp 584-5). Kittel criticizes those who in the last 150 years separated the teaching of Jesus from his person. If Christianity is reduced to the ethical maxims of the Sermon on the Mount, a paradox will remain because the "key has been lost" to a resolution of their absurd and despairing absoluteness. Or if the absolute demands of the Sermon on the Mount are compromised so that they appear as everyday morality, one must understand that they are as different from Jesus' demands as earth and heaven (p 589). The Sermon on the Mount represents a demand that cannot be fulfilled. The Torah and every other human law had only one purpose--to be fulfilled and to improve the world. But the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is altogether different. It pulls down and it can only shatter. In a word, its last end and only purpose is to shatter and lay bare man's great ethical need, But this is not the final story because the cross of Christ is a correlate to the demand of Jesus. The Gospel exposes our neediness and sinfulness, but it also points to the reality of forgiveness and grace. Thus for Kittel, the ultimate fulfillment of the paradox posed by the Sermon on the Mount is in the authority of Christ (pp 590-1). Hans Windisch provides a succinct summary of Kittel's approach to the Sermon on the Mount: In an this Kittel emphasizes again that the theological problern of the imperative of the Sermon on the Mount leads to the conviction that ethical idealism has collapsed. In the second place, he maintains with great energy that there is a connection between the singularity and absoluteness of the ethical paradoxes of Jesus and the singularity and absoluteness of his person. In his hands the problern of the Sermon on the Mount passes over into the Christological problern. Finally, he finds the solution, to which the Sermon itself points, in the Pauline doctrine of the cross [The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, tr s. MacLean Gilmour (Philadelphia: Westromster Pr, 1951), p 61].

Horace Marriott 19

71

HOR.ACE MARRIOTT

In bis introduction to The Sermon on the Mount Marriott states that he has endeavored to write a fairly complete treatise on the Sermon on the Mount which c;ombines critical, exegetical, and expository elements. A large part of the book deals with textual and source analysis and with parallels and affinities to the Sermon on the Mount in pre-Christian Jewish literature, and these aspects are probably Marriott's most significant contributions to Sermon on the Mount scholarship. Applying the methodology of the "Synoptic Problem" he reconstructs the Greek Q text of the Sermon on the Mount, and this is a unique feature of his study. In examining the place of the Sermon on the Mount in the teaching of Jesus, Marriott sees a number of limitations in the Sermon. It presents a very partial expression of his teaching. The claim that the Sermon on the Mount expresses the substance of Jesus' teaching, or at least of all his ethical teaching, is far from the truth. There is a dearth of doctrine in the Sermon as there are no predictions of the Passion and Resurrection, no teaching about Christ's relation to the forgiveness of sin, no trinitarian understanding of the relationship between Father and Son, no teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Church, or the Sacraments. As for eschatology, there is no explicit announcement of Christ's second coming, nothing about signs which precede it, or the duty of being watchful in view of its approach, and there is silence as to a catastrophic coming of the Kingdom. In the area of ethics, Marriott finds that there is no teaching on love to God or on love to Christ, no reference to voluntary self-sacrifice for others, nothing about Sabbath observance and the traditions of the Jews. Marriott concludes that the Sermon on the Mount is clearly neither a doctrinal nor an eschatological discourse. While it does not cover the whole field of Jesus' teaching, it is preeminently ethical in character [The Sermon on the Mount (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925), pp 206-9; page references are to this work]. As seen above, Marriott regards the eschatological influence upon the Sermon on the Mount as minimal. In reaction against the Interim Ethic concept, Marriott writes: That eschatology should enter into bis teaching was inevitable, for it is inseparable from religious ethics. But to maintain that it was the center of gravity of his whole message, and that ethics were only subsidiary and incidental, is to traverse the plain testimony of the Gospel records [P 237]. His minimizing of eschatology is further substantiated by the claim that the Sermon on the Mount is essentially representative of Jesus' earlier teaching and that there is ground for thinking that eschatology entered less into Jesus' thought than at a later time. Marriott says that it is hardly without significance that the Gospels assign a great ethical discourse to the earlier part of bis ministry,

72

History of Interpretation

and a great eschatological discourse (Mark 13) to the closing days of his earthly life (pp 223, 238-9). In reference to Jesus' absolute commands regarding oaths and nonresistance, Marriott observes that the general tenor of Christ' s teaching is to enunciate broad principles of conduct and to leave it to men to determine for themselves the precise application of those principles to particular cases. Thus it would be out of harmony with the general character of Jesus' teachings if we accepted these precepts as precise and binding rules. Marriott concludes that Jesus did not intend these startling injunctions to be taken as universally binding rules. This does not mean that under no circumstances will we act in literal accord with them, but only that we need not feel under obligation to do so (p 254). In his concluding section Marriott deals with the relevance of the Sermon on the Mount to contemporary social problems. He lists such areas as war, the divorce of ethics from religion, external good behavior and conformity to conventional standards in cantrast to inward integrity, an optimistic view of man's progress, international relations, race, Christian union. The general spirit of the age is too worldly and materialistic to constitute a complete and satisfying ideal. Consequently, the Sermon on the Mount contains a relevant message for this age because it provides the corrective of its errors, the redress of its imperfect and inadequate aims and ideals, and the true and only way along which it can proceed towards a solution of its many and great problems (pp 261-6). 20

HANS WINDISCH

Without question one of the most important and thorough twentieth-century studies of the Sermon on the Mount is Hans Windisch's Der Sinn der Bergpredigt which was first published in 1929 as volume 16 of a series called "Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament," of which Windisch hirnself was editor. A second edition appeared in 1937. The English translation by s. MacLean Gilmour is from the second German edition and is entitled The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount [Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1951; page references are to this work]. Windisch begins by analyzing two post-World War I trends in German New Testament scholarship. One resorts to historical criticism and tries as much as possible to free itself from all dogmatic and all modernizing theological influences. The other view attempts to produce a "theology, " a synthesis of history and theology, of history and metaphysics, or of history and philosophy of history (p 17). Windisch proposes that these two areas must be delineated and that one must learn to distinguish between historical and theological exegesis and to make clear where the one ends and the other begins. For Windisch the methodology of the historical interpreter is basic and primary. Therefore, he states the purpose

Hans Windisch

73

of his book as follows: "The purpose of what follows is to show, with reference to an especially important document of the New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount, what historical and critical exegesis, has taught us to see" (pp 18-9). In the first chapter Windisch deals with the relationship of the Sermon on the Mount to eschatology. Two facts emerge with respect to the problern of eschatology. First, the Sermon on the Mount, like all the speeches in Matthew, is conditioned by eschatological expectation. But secondly, the Evangelist has forced a good deal of material into this framework that originally was entirely unaffected by eschatological beliefs. The Sermon on the Mount is conditioned in its entirety by eschatology. It is eschatological legislation, but it is also radically religious legislation. Consequently, such designations as "interim ethic" and "exceptional legislation" are inadequate. "The radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount is not dependent on the imminence of the final revelation, or on the aceidentat brevity of the interim, but on the essential circumstance that the event for which one must prepare is the rule of God; that the summons comes from God who now, by the mouth of Jesus, demands something utter and absolute" (p 29).

Thus Windisch is not a "consistent eschatologist," for though eschatology is a primary foundation of the Sermon on the Mount there are parts which are non-eschatological. Among these are: the sayings about the salt and the light; the Iogion about sacrifice in Matt. 5:23f; the saying about spiritual adultery; the prohibitions of divorce, of oaths, and of revenge; the con;unand to Iove one's enemies; the saying about the eye; the Iogion about two masters; the saying about the mote and the beam; the assurance that prayer will be heard; and the Golden Rule (p 30). This leaves the following passages which are dominated by eschatology: the Beatitudes; the sayings concerning the Kingdom in Matt. 5:19-20; the second saying with reference to reconciliation in verses 25f (if it is to be understood as an eschatological parable); the sayings about hindrances in verses 29f; the Lord's Prayer; the Iogion about storing up riches; the saying about passing judgment in chapter 7:1f; the pericope of the two ways in verses 13f; the warning about the Final Judgment in verses 21-23; and the concluding parables (p 37). The relationship between the eschatological and the non-eschatological elements in the Ser!Ilon on the Mount can be understood as two currents of the Synoptic proclamation brought together by Jesus. One current is purified and radicalized wisdom teaching; the other is the prophetic-eschatological proclamation of salvation and judgment. Windisch concludes: "lt is characteristic of the Sermon on the Mount that its radicalisms are fed from both streams; but in the main they issue from the religious wisdom of Jesus. Both the wisdom and the eschatology in Jesus' teaching are heightened to radical demand, and this fact is one of the most important in accounting for the combination of these two forms of proclam.ation that originally were essentially foreign to one another" (p 40).

74

History of Interpretation

In chapter II Windisch turns to the meaning of the commandments and the problern of their probability and comes to his main thesis. He begins by discussing modern interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Among them are Wilhelm Herrmann, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, each of whom have "modernized" the teachings of Jesus by viewing them through Kantian and eschatological lenses. Of these tendencies Windisch writes: "We can summarize the essence of this whole approach as follows: It always presupposes a spiritual orientation that, from the very outset, determines the judgment that is passed on the gospel sayings" (p 55). But there is another solution which is equally erroneous--the Paulinizing or dogmatic. Carl Stange and Gerhard Kittel are the two exponents of this position. For Stange the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to compel the hearer to pass a judgment of condemnation upon himself. The Sermon on the Mount leads from imperative to judgment, from ideal to penitence. For Kittel the Sermon exposes man's moral dilemma and throws him into despair. The Situation opens the way for a Christological solution. The cross of Christ is a correlate to the Sermon's demands. Kittel's solution is in the Pauline doctrine of the cross. Windisch says that both Stange and Kittel seek to provide a purely theological solution to the problern of the Sermon on the Mount. Their interpretation rests upon two theological axioms: the demands of the Sermon on the Mount are an adequate representation of the will of God and therefore are absolutely obligatory; and we cannot fulfill them. A solution is to be found only by means of divine intervention. In the one instance this saving revelation is said to be contained within the Sermon itself; in the other, it has to be discovered elsewhere in the New Testament (p 61). Having exposed the inadequacies of these idealistic and theological interpretations, Windisch is now ready to set forth the results of historical exegesis. The essence of his view is that the Sermon on the Mount is essentially a collection of commandments and that these are practicable in the sense that Jesus expected them to be obeyed as a condition of salvation. The commands have an immediate, practical purpose and they are to be followed if the disciple relationship is to be maintained. The Sermon on the Mount is an explication of the will of God as it applies to us. The Evangelist wants to portray Jesus as a new lawgiver who intends to both fulfill the Mosaic Law and to improve upon it. Windisch says that we begin by establishing the fact that any radical and consistent rejection of "legalism" is foreign to the extant sayings of Jesus. By "legalism" he understands a doctrine of the relation of the religious man to his God that is determined largely by commandment and by obedience to commandment (p 73). The teaching of Jesus in Matt. 5 is not an ethic of repentance, as Stange held, not is it to be understood as Jesus' bringing a new attitude but not a new law. This antithesis is false because these imperatives are to be understood as commandments whose practicability is everywhere assumed though occasionally the difficulty of carrying out a given command may be stressed.

Hans Windisch

75

In light of these results, Windisch sees a clear picture of the social ethic of the Sermon on the Mount and indeed the whole ethical teaching that Jesus had in mind. It has no political reference whatever although it can have political and social implications. It is related to a man's neighbor, brother, enemy, and judge, but not to his fellow countryman, fellow citizen, superior, employer, or governor. :0: is individualistic in the sense that it envisions encounters of man with man. Community, economic, and national organization, and the ethical relationships therein entailed, are not considered in the Sermon on the Mount or elsewhere in Jesus' ethical teaching. The entire social ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is articulated in individual sayings that are to be understood literally and interpreted literally (pp 122 -3). In his third chapter, "Christ and His Attitude to Judaism in the Sermon on the Mount," Windisch makes some observations about the Christology of the Sermon on the Mount. He believes that Jesus lays claim to four Christological prerogatives: (1) the authoritative interpreter of the Law; (2) a new legislator; (3) a prophet, though in the main only one who renews and makes more compelling the message of his predecessors; (4) the future judge of the world (p 126). Thus the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount presents hirnself as an expositor of the Law, legislator, prophet, future world judge, and Lord of the new religious community. But beyond these specifically Messianic functions, the Christology of the Sermon on the Mount does not go. The doctrine of salvation set forth in the Sermon is pre-Christian and pre-Pauline. Windisch thinks it can perhaps best be described as "liberal Jewish Christian" (p 130). Windisch can find no basis in the Sermon on the Mount for Christ the redeemer. However, he says that the basis for the Pauline-Johannine Christology can be found there in germinal form. The Messianic view of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was one of his authority as teacher, as prophet, and his prospective authority as world judge. Such a vision led to the formation of the church and also fomented opposition to the synagogue and its authorities (pp 138-9).

After further discussing the relationship between Jesus and Judaism, Windisch states that the Sermon on the Mount, despite its pre-Pauline character, is a manifesto of the Christian Messiah in which the gulf between the Christian community and the orthodox synagogue is already evident. One can see the cross looming in the background of the Sermon, not the cross as a symbol of God's saving grace (this has no relationship to the Sermon on the Mount), but the cross as a symbol of the verdict that Sadducean and Pharisaic Judaism had to reach with regard to Jesus. He had undermined the Torah and repudiated the Halakah. He showed no respect for the authority of the rabbis and even seemed to place hirnself above Moses. The claim of such a man to be Messiah had to be brandedas false and blasphemous, and he hirnself had to be crucified and exterminated as a deceiver and as a danger to the people (p 152). Thus, contrary to Stange and Kittel, Windisch presents the

76

History of Interpretation

view that Christ the redeemer and the Pauline view of salvation are absent from the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, one finds no trace in the Sermon of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ and of the energizing power of the Spirit which were the foundation stones upon which the disciples built the new religious community. In his final chapter Windisch proposes a theological exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount and in so doing he covers many of the themes in the previous sections. He emphasizes again his main thesis that the Sermon on the Mount consists of commands which are to be obeyed. Windisch describes Tolstoy and many Baptists as representatives of these who regard the Sermon as a binding authority. They cannot simply be dismissed as "fanatics" or "sectarians," In one of the most forceful defenses of his thesis, Windisch writes: Jf this is what they are, then Jesus hirnself was a fanatic and the founder of a sect. The unmistakable conclusion of our exegesis is that such people have correctly understood the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon intends to proclaim commands. It presents demands that are to be literally understood and literally fulfilled. Polemic against 'fanatics' is to a large extent polemic against the Sermon on the Mount and criticism of Jesus hirnself [p 172].

Though Windisch sets forth a theology of the Sermon on the Mount, his real affinity is with "historical criticism." He concludes his book with a comparison of the respective methodologies of theological and historical criticism. Theological exegesis seeks to discover the "permanent value" of Scripture, the meaning of Scripture for our time. But it is subject to frequent changes because of the changing intellectual and spiritual climate. Moreover, it is also unstable because the tradition it works with is not uniform or unequivocal. Therefore theological exegesis is always relative and partial. Consequently, in reference to the Sermon on the Mount, historical exegesis must precede, parallel, and stand over against all theological interpretations. The task of historical exegesis is to transcend change and flux and to reach back into the past, the static, and the fixed. It is clear that for Windisch historical exegesis must serve as the corrective of every attempt to extract a theology from, or impose a theology upon, the Sermon on the Mount. That is, historical exegesis must oppose all dogmatizing and modernizing reinterpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Windisch's concluding sentence leaves no doubt where his real interest lies. "That is the function of historical exegesis, and it only can truly explain the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount" (p 213). Windisch's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is open to a number of objections. Does he not detach and isolate the Sermon on the Mount too much from the rest of the Synoptics and the New Testament? Isn't his distinction between historical and theological exegesis too sharp and artificial? Does he claim for historical exegesis an "objectivity" which is unwarranted and even im-

An hnpossible Possibility

77

possible? However, in spite of these and other criticisms, Windisch has dealt in a forthright and scholarly manner with most of the fundamental problems related to the Sermon on the Mount. His work will continue to be one of the outstanding landmarks on the terrain of Sermon on the Mount interpretation. 21

AN IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY

Among the "theological giants" of the twentieth century, Reinhold Niebuhr stands with the tallest. Probably no other American theologian has had so profound an impact upon his time as has Niebuhr. His work on theological anthropology is among the most penetrating and insightful in Christian history. His many writings on the relationship between Christian theology and politics have extended his influence far beyond the Christian community. He is acknowledged to be not only a great theologian but also a renowned political theorist and philosophe r of history. Niebuhr, however, never constructed a "system" of theology. His theological methodology can perhaps best be described as dialogical. Theological reflection was not an ivory tower discipline, but evolved out of the context of polemical encounter with his opponents. Theology was a response to the "heresy" of "the liberal culture of modernity," of pacifism, of secular idealism, of utopianism, etc. In 1932 Niebuhr's epochal Moral Man and Immoral Society [NY: Scribner's, 1932] was published. This work left a profound impact upon American theology, comparable to Barth's Der Römerbrief upon Continental theology. It was concerned with the problern of power, and its most basic contention was that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and of social groups, national, racial, and economic; and that this distinction justifies and necessitates political policies which a purely in- dividualistic ethic must always find embarrassing [Moral Man, p xi]. It may be possible to establish just relations between individuals by moral and rational suasion and accommodation, but in inter-group relations this is virtually impossible. Relations among groups must always be predominantly political rather than ethical. While unselfishness is the highest moral ideal of the individual, the highest moral ideal of society is justice. Societies must strive for justice even though they must use resistance and coercion. Such means will offend the sensitive moral spirit, and while these two moral perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and the contradiction between them is not absolute, they are not easily harmonized.

Thus there is a conflict between religious and political morality. The religious ideal expressed in its purest form, as in the Sermon on the Mount, has nothing to do with the problern of social justice. It makes disinterestedness an absolute ideal without reference to social consequences. "Pure religious idealism does not concern itself

78

History of Interpretation

with the social problem"; "Nothing is clearer," Niebuhr writes, "than that a pure religious idealism must issue in a policy of nonresistance which makes no claims to be socially efficacious. It submits to any demands, however unjust, and yields to any claims, however inordinate, rather than assert self-interest against another" [Moral Man, pp 263, 264]. Such a course, Niebuhr insists, must always result in policies which, from the political perspective, are quite impossible. One can easily appreciate the shockwaves Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society produced in "the liberal culture of modernity," for he undercut some of its most cherished ideals and long-held presuppositions. Niebuhr levelled some of his sharpest polemic against pacifism. He made a distinction between the classical, non-political Anabaptist position and modern pacifism which advocated the renunciation of force in the relations between nations. The former kept before the Christian community the ultimate norm of an impossible ideal without claiming that it could be a political strategy. The latter, however, tended to make the gospel of nonviolence a substitute for the New Testament position of nonresistance. Pacifism was another indication of the political irrelevance of Christian liberalism. Pacifists with their desire for purity of ideals and their distaste for the requirements of justice in a morally ambiguous world, evaded the messiness of politics and contracted out of history. In 1935 An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, which was originally presented as the Rauschenbusch Memorial Lectures in the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, was published [NY: Harper]. Niebuhr's essential concern in this work is how one relates the radical ethic of agape to viable norms of ethical discrimination in the historical order. Many of the same themes in Moral Man and Immoral Society recur, but Niebuhr now begins to move more in the direction of a theological anthropology which culminated in his magnum opus, The Nature and Destiny of Man. The ethic of Jesus as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount does not deal with the immediate moral problern of every lmman life--the problern of arranging some kind of armistice between various contending factions and forces. Nor does it have anything to say about the relativities of politics and economics and the necessary balances of power which exist and must exist in even the most intimate social relationships. The absolute perfectionism of Jesus' ethic sets itself uncompromisingly not only against the natural selfregarding impulses, but against the necessary prudent defenses of the self, required because of the egoism of others. "lt does not establish a connection with the horizontal points of a political or social ethic or with the diagonals which a prudential individual ethic draws between the moral ideal and the facts of a given situation. It has only a vertical dimension between the loving will of God and the will of man" [An Interpretation, p 39]. Or as Niebuhr says elsewhere: "The injunctions 'resist not evil,' 'love your enemies,' 'if ye love them that love you what thanks have you?' 'be not anx-

C. H. Dodd

79

ious for your life, ' and 'be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect,' are all of one piece and they are all uncompromising and absolute" [Christianity and Power Politics (NY: Scribner's, 1940), p 8]. Jesus' ethic is not, however, an "interim ethic," but there is an eschatological element in it and basis for it. The ethical demands made by Jesus cannot be fulfilled in man's present existence. Their final fulfillment is possible only when God transmutes the present -chaos of this world into its final unity [An Interpretation, pp 55-6]. An Interpretation of Christian Ethics contains the farnaus chapter, "The Relevance of an hnpossible Ethical Ideal." The love commandment which is the essence of Jesus' ethic is not a simple possibility but an impossible possibility. The ethic of agape is impossible to fulfill in our historical existence. It is revealed and illumined through Christ and the Cross. "Christ is the revelation of the very impossible possibility which the Sermon on the Mount elaborates in ethical terms" (p 120). Christ surpasses the Iimit of man's moral possibilities and this can reduce man to despair. But the paradox is that Christ is both our hope and our despair. Christ and the Cross reveal not only the possibilities but the Iimits of human finitude. Consequently, repentance becomes the gateway into the Kingdom of God for those who no langer place their confidence in purely human possibilities. "lt is out of such despair, 'the godly sorrow which worketh repentance, ' that faith arises" (p 121). It is in this context that we discern "the relevance of an impossible ethical ideal." While the law of love and the Sermon on the Mount are impossibilities, nevertheless, they offer immediate possibilities of a higher good in every given situation. An impossible ethic always presents us with an ultimate norm that transcends the range of possible achievements. But such a norm also makes possible the kind of searching criticism of both intention and action that provides the impetus for the highest moral creativity. [For an admirable treatment of Niebuhr' s thought in a primarily bibliographic work, see Nathan A. Scott, Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr (Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Pr, 1963).]

22

C. H. DODD

For the distinguished New Testament scholar, C. H. Dodd, there are two concepts which are central in the interpretation of New Testament ethics. One is "realized eschatology"--the idea that with the coming of Jesus the Kingdom of God was realized. Jesus spoke about the presence of the Kingdom in such terms as "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." The other concept is the "kerygma"--the existence of a primitive and constant element in the New Testament presentation of Christianity consisting of the saving acts of God in history, particularly in the death and resurrection of Christ.

80

History of Jnte rpretation

The ethical teaching (didache) of the New Testament is embedded in the context of the kerygma which consists of a report of historical facts and an explanation of their religious significance. Dodd discerns a pattern in the New Testament regarding the relationship between kerygma and didache. Those who responded to the proclamation became members of the community, the Church. They were then instructed in the ethical principles and obligations of the Christian life. Thus the order of approach was first proclamation and then moral instruction, first kerygma, then didache [Dodd, Gospel and Law (NY: Columbia Univ Pr, 1951), pp 8-24; for detailed analysis of the kerygmatic content, see Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1937), pp 1-49]. The Sermon on the Mount represents the most detailed compilation of didache and consists of moral maxims drawn from the teaching of Jesus for the guidance of Christians. It is not a sermon at all, but "a highly articulated and systematic presentation of the · main features of the Christian ethical system" [Gospel and Law, p 6]. Dodd thinks that the structure of the Matthaean version of the Sermon on the Mount may have been influenced at some stage by a form of catechetical instruction, if it is not based directly upon it. In the Lucan version, however, traces of the catechetical scheme are much more difficult to discern [Dodd, More New T.estament Studies (Manchester: Manchester Univ Pr, 1968), pp 17-8]. The ethical teaching of the early Church was set in the context of the kerygma. This resulted in a transformation of the ethical ideas because they were defined by the Gospel as it was contained in the kerygma. Dodd suggests that there are four points where the Christian ethic of the New Testament betrays such direct dependence upon the Gospel. One of these is Christian eschatology which was an essential element in the Gospel as it was contained in the primitive kerygma. ß:s essence is found in Mark's succinct summary, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is upon you" (Mark 1:15). "The gospel of primitive Christianity is a gospel of realized eschatology" [Apostolic Preaching, p 147]. This belief influenced the ethical ideas of early Christianity in two ways. First, the note of impending catastrophe was strong; and since the world seemed temporary, only values which were abiding were worthy of attention. Such a mood resulted in a moral earnestness and a sober sense of responsibility. II: enabled one to contemplate the ultimate ethical demand as the absolute claim of God. Secondly, as the expectation of faded under the impact of facts, the ation of what had already happened. ready realized, and because of what had suffered, the heights and depths [Gospel and Law, pp 25-32].

an immediate end of the world church came to a new appreciThe great expectation was alChrist had done and what he of human nature were laid bare

C. H. Dodd

81

The Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of Jesus must therefore be understood in relation to the kerygma, and a central element of the kerygma is the proclamation that "The Kingdom of God has come upon you"--that the Eschaton has been realized. In The Parables of the Kingdom [NY: Scribner's, 1961] Dodd defines realized eschatology as follows: "Here then is the fixed point from which our interpretation of the teaching regarding the Kingdom of God must start. It represents the ministry of Jesus as 'realized eschatology, ' that is to say, as the impact upon this world of the 'powers of the world to come' in a series of events, unprecedented and unrepeatable, now in actual process" (p 35). A further elaboration of the relation of Jesus' ethics to the Kingdom of God is seen in History and the Gospel. Dodd says that Jesus' ethical teaching is no system of general casuistry, nor yet an "interim ethic" for a brief and special period in history. He continues: It is the absolute ethic of the Kingdom of God, the moral principles of a new order of life. The implied major premise of all his ethical sayings is the affirmation 'The Kingdom of God has come upon you:'--The Kingdom of God has come upon you, therefore love your enemies that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.... The Kingdom of God has come upon you, therefore take no thought for your life, but seek first his Kingdom. The Kingdom of God has come upon you, therefore judge not, for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, in the judgment which is inseparable from the coming of God in his Kingdom. The teaching of Jesus is not an ethic for those who expect the speedy end of the world, but for those who have experienced the end of this world and the coming of the Kingdom of God [History and the Gospel (NY: Scribner's, 1938), p 125].

In an essay, "The Ethics of the New Testament" [in Moral Principles of Action, ed Ruth Nanda Anshen (NY: Harper, 1952)], Dodd says (p 553) that the total teaching of Jesus is primarily concerned with one theme: "The Kingdom of God is at hand;" "The Kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mark 1:15, Matt. 12:28, Luke 10:9).

While Dodd's chief emphasis is upon realized eschatology, he does not question Jesus' use of apocalyptic language. He says that there remains a certain tension in Jesus' teaching between "other worldliness" and "this worldliness." This is represented by the apparent contradiction between the prayer, "Thy Kingdom come," and the declaration, "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." Furthermore, almost all parts of the New Testament express the tension between: the Kingdom of God will come; it has come: Christ has come; Christ will come [The Parables, p 167; Gospel and Law, p 28]. But Jesus used apocalyptic imagery as a series of symbols standing for realities which the human mind cannot directly apprehend. And the fact that history has not yet been consummated leads men to think and speak in terms of futuristic imagery and categories. There can be little doubt that Dodd stands at the opposite

82

History of Interpretation

pole from Schweitzer insofar as their respective understanding of Jesus' teachings is concerned. Dodd expresses the priority of "realized eschatology" over "consistent eschatology" in this cogent passage: "In the New Testament the apocalyptic symbolism of the Old recurs freely, but with a profound difference. The divine event is declared to have happened" [Apostolle Preaching, pp 145-6). Many interpreters find a definite eschatological element in the Beatitudes. Dodd acknowledges this also, but it is in the "background." Thus he writes: It is true that the blessings assured to the various types all

have 'eschatological' associations, or, to use language nearer to that of the Gospels, are functions of the Kingdom of Heaven, or of God.... But all would be entirely consistent with the idea of a Kingdom which already was present. . . . Any idea of a Kingdom yet to come by way of a catastrophic suddenness is in the background [More New Testament Studies, p8). There remains the question of the relevance of Jesus' teachings, especially those in the Sermon on the Mount. Dodd thinks that they were intended as a Law. The principal body of Jesus' ethical sayings found in the Sermon on the Mount is so placed in Matthew as to suggest a parallel with the promulgation of the Law of Moses from Mount Sinai. Moreover, the parallelism is further evidenced by the antitheses between the Old Law and the New in the Sermon. Dodd believes that Matthew represented Jesus as the King who promulgates a New Law for his subjects. Consequently, there is reason to believe that the ethical precepts of Jesus are intended to constitute a Law. It is also significant that the Sermon on the Mount ends with a parable which in Dodd' s view leaves no doubt that Jesus' precepts are to be obeyed. Dodd concludes: "lt appears, then, that we shall not be far wrong in taking the Sermon on the Mount as Matthew represented it--namely, as the New Law which supersedes the Law of the Old Testament--the Law of the Kingdom of God. That, I believe, is the sense in which any reasonable reader would understand the Sermon upon an unprejudiced reading of it [Gospel and Law, pp 62-5). But Jesus' ideal will never be completely realized by men in this world. Nevertheless, it is clear that it can be realized in some measure upon every level of human action. Dodd says that we are not concerned with a precise and limited definition of rules of behavior, but with "the quality and direction of action which shall conform with the divine standard." This quality and this direction may be present from the lowest level of achievement to the most saintly. But at whatever level, the precepts are obligatory. However, at no level will they ever by completely fulfilled. Therefore, they will always represent a challenge for us ["Ethics ... , " in Moral Principles, ed Anshen, p 558).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

83

In international relations it may be neither possible nor desirable for nations to act like the man who turns the other cheek. But even at this level, human action is wrang unless it partakes of this quality of patient and unselfish respect for the other party, no matter how objectionable the situation. Likewise, the aim must be in the direction of overcoming evil with good. Without this frame of reference, actions are not only wrang but ultimately disastrous. Dodd affirms the universal relevance of Jesus' ethic when he observes: "The Law of Christ, we conclude, is not a specialized code of regulations for a society with optional membership. It is based upon the revelation of the nature of the eternal God, and it affirms the principles upon which His world is built and which men ignore at their peril" [Gospel and Law, p 81].

23

DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

Bonhoeffer's Nachfolge (English version The Cast of Discipleship) is a classic on the meaning and implications of Christian discipleship. Karl Barth, referring especially to the opening sections, said that it is by far the best that has been written on the subject [Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, tr Eric Mosbacher, Peter & Betty Ross, Frank Clarke, Wm Glen-Goepel; ed Edwin Robertson (NY: Harper & Row, 1970), p 372]. Its authority is enhanced by the author's quality of life. For whenever one gives his life for his faith, his words gain the authority of his example. Nachfolge grew out of lectures which Bonhoeffer gave while directing the seminary at Finkenwalde between 1935 and 1937. It is divided into three sections: Grace and Discipleship; The Sermon on the Mount; and The Church of Jesus Christ and the Life of Discipleship. It is with the second section that we are particularly concerned in this study. William Kuhns has called Nachfolge Bonhoeffer' s angriest book --possibly his one "angry" book [In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (London: Burns & Oates, 1967), p 81]. In order to understand Bonhoeffer's "anger" one must be aware of the German political situation. This was the period of Hitler's rise to absolute power. Persecution of the Jews was raging. Criticism of the regime from any quarter, including the church, was quickly squelched. Church organization, ritual, and theology continued, but the prophetic quality of the faith was wanting. Bonhoeffer was convinced that Germany could be saved only through a genuine return to Christian discipleship and to the Christian faith. Bonhoeffer' s interest in the Sermon on the Mount antedated the publication of Nachfolge by a number of years. Bethge states that there can be no doubt that the book owes its impetus and pungency to a preoccupation with the Sermon on the Mount dating back to a time lang before 1935 [Bethge, p 369].

84

History of Interpretation

Between 1933 and 1935 Bonhoeffer administered two pastorates in London. Among bis sermons was a series mon on the Mount. Unfortunately these sermons have not although sixteen of the others preached in London have. 1934 Bonhoeffer wrote to E. Sutz:

German on the Sersurvived, In April

Please write and tell me some time what you say when you preach about the Sermon on the Mount. I am working on this now--trying to keep it extremely simple and Straightforward, but it always comes back to keeping the commandment and not evading it. Discipleship of Christ--Pd like to know what this is--it is not exhausted in our concept of faith. I am setting to work on something I might describe as an essay--this is a first step [quoted in Bethge, p 376). As early as 1927 Bonhoeffer expressed interest in Christian communities that could be expressions of discipleship. In 1935 a community, later known as 11the House of Brethren, 11 was realized at Finkenwalde. In a letter to his brother, Karl Friedrich, in January 1935, Bonhoeffer wrote: I think I am right in saying that I would only achieve true inward clarity and sincerity by really starting work on the Sermon on the Mount. Here alone lies the force that can blow all this stuff and nonsense sky-high, in a fireworks display that will leave nothing behind but one or two charred remains. The restoration of the Church must surely depend on a new kind of monasticism, having nothing in common with the old but a life of uncompromising adherence to the Sermon on the Mount in imitation of Christ. I believe the time has come to rally men tagether for this [ quoted in Bethge, p 380). Bonhoeffer's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount differs from most scholarly studies in that there is no recourse to philology, archaeology, and historical criticism. He does not deal with the usual problems raised by criticism of the Gospels such as the composition of the Sermon, eschatology, etc. His interest lay in another direction. His intention was to reassert the validity of 11faith alone 11 and 11 grace alone 11 by restoring to them their concreteness in the life of discipleship. lnterpreting the Sermon on the Mount can too easily become a substitute for 11doing it. 11 Thus Bonhoeffer says: 11 To deal with the word of Jesus otherwise than by doing it is to wrong him. It is to deny the Sermon on the Mount and to say No to bis word. If we start asking questions, posing problems, and affering interpretations, we are not doing his word ... 11 [The Cost of Discipleship, tr R. H. Fuller (NY: Macmillan, 1949), p 168]. Our task is 11 to do 11 the Sermon on the Mount, to relate it to the concrete problems of life. More important than the critical questions are the ones which ask what Christ is asking of us today and what his will is for us today. In Ethics Bonhoeffer writes: 11 It

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

85

is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men before God is the doing of His will. The Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done (Matt. 7:24ff. ). Only in doing can there be submission to the will of God" [Ethics, tr Neville H. Smith, ed Eberhard Bethge (NY: Macmillan, 1955), p 166]. A number of interpreters have dealt with the question of whether The Cost of Discipleship does not depart significantly from Luther's emphasis upon sola fide and sola gratia. Bethge says that in 1928, when he was in Barcelona, Bonhoeffer bad still read the Sermon on the Mount in the traditional Lutheran way, whereby to understand it literally was to make it into a law, and that law was abolished in Christ. Bethge notes further that while Bonhoeffer was in America he bad grown less sure of this interpretation, and in bis university seminar of 1932 he bad dealt with the relationship between faith, commandment, and obedience along the lines of The Cost of Discipleship. Bethge concludes that Bonhoeffer did not intend to question the complete validity of Luther's soteriology, but rather to reassert that validity by restoring its concreteness here on earth (pp 375-6, 372). William Kuhns believes that Bonhoeffer's insistence on obedience as the ineluctable consequence of faith reached beyond Luther's dieturn sola fide and that Bonhoeffer's theology of obedience is clearly a theology"""öf action. But Kuhns makes another significant observation: "Obviously, the Church' s condition demanded an emphasis of this kind: only action could save the day, and Bonhoeffer realized that the traditional Lutheran formulation bad generally encouraged passivity" (In Pursuit, pp 86-7]. Bonhoeffer bad received bis grounding in Luther from Reinhold Seeberg and Karl Holl at Berlin. Both Bethge and Kuhns agree that he never departed from this tradition, even though he gave it a new accent. His "deviation" from Luther must be viewed within the political and ecclesiastical context of the early 1930's in Germany. In bis exposition on the Sermon on the Mount Bonhoeffer is not formulating a new "works righteousness, " but he is uniting moral exhortation with doctrinal discussion. No one reading bis work on the Sermon on the Mount can miss its predominant Christological character. Moreover, the Christological interpretation of Scripture was one of the familiar marks of Luther's theology [for discussion of the Christological character of The Cost of Discipleship, see John of Dietrich Bonhoeffer A. Phillips, Christ for Us in the Theolo (NY: Harper & Row, 967 , pp 95-105 .

Bonhoeffer's Christological interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is evident in bis exposition of the Beatitudes. He writes: Having reached the end of the Beatitudes, we naturally ask if there is any place on this earth for the community which they describe. Clearly, there is one place, and only one,

86

History of Interpretation and that is where the Poorest, Meekest, and most sorely Tried of all men is to be found--on the cross at Golgatha. The community which is the subject of the Beatitudes is the community of the crucified. With him it has lost all, and with him it has found all. It is the cross which makes the Beatitudes possible [The Cost of Discipleship, p 97; all references following are to this book].

The section on Matt. 5:17-20 on the Law and its fulfillment is entitled "The Righteousness of Christ." Bonhoeffer says that between the disciples and the better righteousness demanded of them stands the Person of Christ who came to fulfill the law of the Old Covenant. This, says Bonhoeffer, is the fundamental presupposition of the whole Sermon on the Mount (p 105). The basic theological orientation of Bonhoeffer' s exposition of the Sermon on the Mount centers araund the themes of justification and sanctification. He is attempting to relate faith to man's historical situation and to see its implications for the Christian life. One must "follow Jesus" and must be in "fellowship with the Crucified." But this is possible only within the context of grace. It is the Cross that enables man "to do" the Sermon on the Mount. These themes recur again and again in Bonhoeffer's "The Sermon on the Mount." Let us see further how Bonhoeffer relates the above motifs to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' sayings about oaths reflect his concern for absolute truthfulness. Our ability to be truthful is only possible through the power of the cross. Bonhoeffer says: It is only because we follow Jesus that we can be genuinely truthful, for then he reveals to us our sin upon the cross. The cross is God's truth about us, and therefore it is the only power which can make us truthful. When we know the cross we are no longer afraid of the truth. We need no more oaths to confirm the truth of our utterances, for we live in the absolute truth of God [P 120].

As for Jesus' words about nonresistance, Bonhoeffer says that the cross is the only justification for this precept, for it alone makes possible a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey this command. Likewise, to love one's enemies takes us along the way of the cross and into fellowship with the Crucified. The more we walk this road, the more certain we are of the victory of love over the enemy's hatred (pp 125, 129). Matt. 5 closes with Jesus' demand for perfection as the heavenly Father is perfect. The 6th chapter ends on the note of freedom from anxiety. The followers of Jesus are perfected through suffering in the fellowship of the cross. The perfect are the blessed of the Beatitudes. As for freedom from anxiety, only those who follow Christ and know him personally are delivered from the thralldom of anxiety about material things (pp 135, 153).

Martin Dibelius

87

It is Bonhoeffer's Christological pe·rspective which resolves the tension as to whether the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount are to be taken literally or figuratively. The question of the literal versus the figurative interpretation cannot be answered. Either way, we cannot evade the basic issue, i. e., whether we will obey. Jesus does not impose intolerable restrictions on his disciples. "So far from imposing on them an intolerable yoke of legalism, he succours them with the grace of the Gospel" (pp 114-5).

Bonhoeffer's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount represents a balance and tension between faith and works, gospel and law, and as such, it is open to challenge and criticism from both extremes. It must be viewed against the background of the German church' s struggle with Nazism. Consequently, the themes of obedience, following Christ, fellowship with Christ, doing the Sermon on the Mount, are more predominant than they might have been in more "normal" times. On the other side, the themes of grace, the cross, the Gospel, give ample evidence that Bonhoeffer did not follow his eminent, next-door neighbor, Adolf von Harnack, who found only the "Father" and not the "Son" in the Gospels. Bonhoeffer's comments on the parable of the builders which concludes the Sermon on the Mount provides a good summary of his inte rpretation. Humanly speaking, we could understand and interpret the Sermon on the Mount in a thousand different ways. Jesus knows only one possibility: simple surrender and obedience, not interpreting it or applying it, but doing and obeying it. That is the only way to hear his word. But again he does not mean that it is to be discussed as an ideal, he means really putting it into practice. . . . The only proper response to this word which Jesus brings with him from eternity is simply to do it. Jesus has spoken. His is the word, ours the obedience. Only in the doing of it does the word of Jesus retain its honor, might and power among us. Now the storm can rage over the house, but it cannot shatter that union with him, which his word has created [P 168]. 24

MARTIN DffiELIUS

In addition to Hans Windisch, there is a second notable twentieth-century interpreter of the Sermon on the Mount--Martin Dibelius. In 1937 Dibelius delivered the John C. Shaffer Lectures at the Yale Divinity School. Returning to Germany, he revised the manuscript and it was published as The Sermon on the Mount [NY: Scribner's] in 1940.

Since the Sermon on the Mount is so central for the Christian way of living and for Christian ethics, it is necessary to get a clear

88

History of Interpretation

understanding of it with the aid of theological scholarship. However, before this can be done, one must approach it philologically and historically. Dibelius was one of the original exponents of Form Criticism, and he employs its methodology in his study of the Sermon on the Mount. Consequently, he begins with the purpose of the Evangelist in composing the Sermon and his reasons for assigning it to its familiar place in his Gospel. Dibelius feels that it is significant that Matthew placed the Sermon on the Mount in the most prominent place in his book. Before narrating the incidents in Jesus' life he wanted to present Jesus' message. In the mind of the first Christians the Sermon on the Mount was a summary of Jesus' teaching. Dibelius writes: "The Sermon on the Mount has a programmatic character. It is programmatic first of all for the record of Jesus' lüe and work providing the best example of his teaching, an impressive illustration of his manner of addressing men and a wonderful indication of his power to teach the people as one having authority and not as the Scribes" [The Sermon, pp 16-7; all page references are to this work]. To call the Sermon on the Mount a "sermon" is a misnomer, because as Dibelius believes, it is not a real discourse which was "preached" by Jesus on a single occasion. "lt is quite clear that Jesus did not speak in this way, and that he spoke these various words at a variety of occasions" (p 16). The elements in the Sermon on the Mount are mostly individual sayings brought tagether to form separate groups, e. g., the Beatitudes, the new commandments, and the parables of the builders. Each group is complete in itself and has no visible connection with the other groups. Matthew ignored chronology and historical order, and according to Dibelius his intention was to make the Sermon on the Mount a divine law which should govern the communities of his time. Dibelius summarized the method of Form Criticism and its application to the Sermon on the Mount as follows: It is important for the understanding of our Lord's message that we should be aware of this method. Form Criticism ventures to go back to those small units of which Jesus' teaching consists, to detach them from their framewerk and to study their original meaning. Such units of tradition are the elements of which the Sermon on the Mount is composed. It is a summary of characteristic sayings whose historical occasion we do not know. They were brought tagether by the early tradition within the communities in order to form a kind of Christian law. Since this was their purpose the Evangelists added other sayings of our Lord to the collection which existed in the days of Q. thus completing or explaining the older tradition [PP 42-3].

The primary category used by Dibelius in describing the Sermon on the Mount is the "pure will of God. " Jesus proclaims in an

Martin Dibelius

89

absolute way the pure will of God. Though we are indebted to Schweitzer for his eschatological interpretations of the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount is not an interim ethic, valid only for the period before the end of the world. These commandments were given for eternity because they represent the will of the eternal God. They are God's actual demands upon men at all times and for all time (pp 51, 98-9). The eschatological dimension is very central in Dibelius' view. He is' convinced that all of Jesus' teachings have an eschatological background. The Beatitudes which introduce the Sermon on the Mount bear witness to its eschatological orientation. They promise the Kingdom of God to the disinherited and to those without hope. While it is true that some sections of the Sermon on the Mount do not reflect an eschatological expectation, nevertheless, all of Jesus' sayings must be viewed within the context of his prophetic call to repentance because "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. " This eschatological interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount enables us to understand its radical and absolute demands. Jesus was oriented toward the Eschaton and was intent on proclaiming the pure will of God without regard to the circumstances of everyday existence. Thus Dibelius says: "The Sermon on the Mount, on the whole, is a collection of radical, absolute commands and sayings. They are radical and absolute because the man who uttered them did not consider the circumstances of our life and the conditions of this world. He looks only to the coming world, the Kingdom of Heaven" (p 65). This means that even those passages which in isolation appear to be no more than proverbial sayings or maxi.ms are transposed to a higher level. They become part of the Law of the coming Kingdom and present God's demand in the time of crisis. As for Jesus' interpretation of the Old Testament Law and of Jewish piety, Dibelius states that he maintained that one must go farther than the words of the Law. The fulfillment of the written commandments is not enough. Whoever centers his attention on God and His Kingdom instead of the wording of the Law will deepen the significance of the commandments and expand their validity. Dibelius summarizes the relationship between Christ and the Law thus: "Christ has brought with him not the revelation of a new law but the message of the Kingdom. Its purpose is to transform men, and a transformed humanity will be able to do more than men did under the government of the old Law. • . . Thus, in proclaiming the absolute will of God, Jesus speaks not as a legislator, but as God's ambassador in the last hour" (p 78). The question of Jesus and the Law raises a Christological problem. Who is this one who speaks with divine authority? What is the importance of the Sermon on the Mount in relation to Jesus' Messiahship? Dibelius' solution of this problern is related to his Form critical methodology. He makes a distinction between the time in which Jesus lived and the time when the sayings were collected, i. e., between the situation before Easter and the situation after Easter.

90

History of Interpretation

Before Easter Jesus was regarded by bis followers as the personal embodiment of the coming Kingdom. His healings and his words were signs of the heavenly Kingdom. lndeed, he inaugurated the new age. After Easter the situation was completely changed. The Christian community was born by the conviction that God raised Jesus from the dead and that the exalted Christ will return and bring from heaven the divine Kingdom. Consequently, Jesus' commandments assume the status of a new law. The Christians feel that Christ has instructed them to live in accordance with these sayings. They are no Ionger proclamations of the will of God in all its radicalism, but rules of conduct for the life within the communities and are adapted to the conditions of this life. This Situation occurred because the words of the Sermon on the Mount had been spoken by the Messiah, the Christ, the Lord, the Son of God. Dibelius summarizes the changed situation before Easter and after Easter as follows: As regards the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount we may state that before Easter they were words of Jesus spoken to reveal God's will, and that after Easter these sayings were collected to be a rule of conduct for the Christian communities. Du ring bis lifetime the sayings of Jesus were intended to serve as signs of the Kingdom of Heaven. Collected and brought tagether in a slightly elaborated form in the summary called the Sermon on the Mount, the sayings became rules by which the Christians were to prepare themselves for the membersbip in that Kingdom and for a life 'in Christ' meanwhile. Before Easter the simple words wbich we read in the Sermon on the Mount had more value than precepts of the sages, because the man who uttered them was a warrant of the Kingdom of Heaven, the personal embodiment of all faith and hope. His sayings were for his listeners judgment and a promise in the name of God. After Easter they became the law which the heavenly Lord has given [PP 102-3]. Having dealt with the exegetical and historical questions, Dibelius in his final chapter is ready to speak to the question of the Sermon on the Mount's relation to the world of today. Too much Christian theology becomes preoccupied with practical considerations without developing a clear understanding of the meaning of the biblical record. Dibelius avoids this error by putting off practical conclusions until the end of his study. Dibelius returns to his contention that Jesus proclaims the pure will of God. He does so by giving some radical examples of what God demands, but he does not set forth the application of these demands to this world. Tbis would be impossible because the conditions of this world are not the conditions of God's Kingdom. Moreover, practical details would only be relevant and applicable for a short time because the world is constantly changing.

Leonhard Ragaz

91

How then are we to understand the contemporary relevance of the Sermon on the Mount? If we view it as an ideal of religion or of ethics, it is remote from modern life and cannot be fulfilled on earth. "The Sermon on the Mount is not an ideal but an eschatological stimulus intended to mak:e men well acquainted with the pure will of God" (p 135). It speak:s of God's eternal will and not of human and worldly conditions. While we cannot perform its demands in their full scope, we are able to be transformed by it. "The most important thing is that the Sermon on the Mount be effective in the hearts of Christians. . . . The Christian Law does not demand of us that we do something but that we be something" (p 137). We should not seek in the Sermon on theMount authoritative decisions concerning the social issues of today. Even if Jesus had discussed some of these, he would have treated them in the historical and political context of his time. Nevertheless, Dibelius thinks that we have in the Sermon on the Mount a standard by which to solve such problems because all these questions of our daily life are to be decided by Christians as men who are responsible to God alone, and who know the pure will of God from the Gospel. The essence of Dibelius' answer to the Sermon on the Mount's practical relevance is perhaps best expressed in the following quotation: This, then, is what the Sermon on the Mount demands--that Christians should live on their own responsibility before God. God's will came to expression not in systems which are applicable only to certain periods and to certain parts of the world. God's will is revealed in our own midst by signs, the most perceptible of which are the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount. The conditions of this world are not amenable to the Kingdom of God and it is not our task to found this Kingdom. Rather our task is to perform signs, not the signs described in the Bible, but signs of our own time--to perform them as individuals, as communities, as churches, and if possible as nations. . . . The only presupposition here is the transformation of man. A community of men who by their belief and their conduct proclaim God's will is and would be the most convincing witness of God's Kingdom [PP 137-8]. 25

LEONHARD RAGAZ

Leonhard Ragaz was born in 1868 and studied at Basel, Jena, and Berlin. He served as pastor in several Swiss villages and was a pastor and school teacher in Chur before becoming pastor in Basel in 1902. In 1908 he became a professor of systematic and practical theology in Zürich. Ragaz became increasingly active in the religious socialist movement in Switzerland and he and Hermann Kutter were prominent leaders. In 1921 he left his professorship and also withdrew from the church "in order to serve Christ in freer air," without being bound by state, church, and society. In an autobiographical account of his spiritual development, Ragaz reports that his study of Marx' s Das Kapital made a powerful and "religious" impression upon him. It was Christoph Blumhardt,

92

History of Interpretation

however, whose theology and social concern made the strongest impact upon him. Ragaz's understanding of discipleship (Nachfolge) led him to pacifism and to voluntary poverty--ideals which he saw in Tolstoy and St. Francis. But he is perhaps best known for his prophetic insistence that religion must have a social dimension and must provide a stimulus for the revolution of the world [for brief autobiography of Ragaz's spiritual development, see Markus Mattmüller, Leonard Ragaz und der religmse Sozialismus Bd I (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1957), pp 240-6). Shortly before his death in 1945 Ragaz published Die Bergpredigt Jesu [Bern: Verlag Herbert Lang, 1945]. His first chapter designates the Sermon on the Mount as "the magna charta of the Kingdom of God." The central category of Ragaz's theological thought is the Kingdom of God, and he acknowledged his indebtedness to Ritschl. But whereas Ritschl neglected the eschatological dimension of the Kingdom, Ragaz understood the Kingdom as both present and future. It represented not only an immanent, but also a transcendent reality . A second term which is central to Ragaz's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is "revolution." He charges that the Sermon has been misinterpreted as being utopian or a fantasy, and it has become too closely identified with bourgeois morality. It is not a bourgeois morality nor a utopia or fantasy. Moreover, it is not a summation of rules. Rather it is realistic and something quite uniform and simple. 11: is the way of God in opposition to the world, religion, and ethics. The Sermon on the Mount is the unprecedented message of the revolution of the world by God [Die Bergpredigt, pp 7-9]. In 1944 Ragaz published Die Gleichnisse Jesu. He believed that the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount complemented each other and belonged together. The parables speak about the Kingdom of God while the Sermon on the Mount speaks about discipleship. But both these emphases belong tagether and both are related to the revolution of the world. Ragaz says that Die Bergpredigt Jesu is not a historical-exegetical study for theologians and biblical scholars. Rather it is intended as a powerful stimulus. Beginning with the Beatitudes, Ragaz believes that the complete renovation of the world, which the Kingdom of God signifies, is splendidly and at the same time concisely set forth in the eight Beatitudes. It is the first Beatitude, however, which Ragaz considers fundamental to the rest--indeed to the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount. He prefers the Lucan text which says, Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Tlms at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, as with the entire Gospel of the Kingdom of God, stand the poor. Moreover, the idea of poverty is not understood by the world because it runs counter to the world's ideals. But if one would inherit the Kingdom, he must become poor before God. Property and possessions, the "spiritual" no less

Leonhard Ragaz

93

than the material, are opposed to this concept. In reference to material poverty, Jesus is not referring to utter destitution. It is rather to be understood in the sense of "proletariat," and this term points to the higher meaning of poverty (Armut). Not only the first Beatitude, but all of them, point away from the world to God. This is their simple, deeper, and powerful meaning. They point to the revolution of the world by God which is the Kingdom of God [Bergpredigt, pp 13-6; Ragaz, Die Bibel: Eine Deutung Bd V (Zürich: Diana Verlag, 1949), pp 38-9]. For Ragaz the Sermon on the Mount stands in radical tension and Opposition to the world. This is especially apparent in Jesus' saying that one cannot serve God and mammon. The Kingdom of God is in opposition to religion, power, and mammon. Mammon or money is responsible for the great differences between persons which are evidenced by class strüe. Moreover, it leads to strüe and war in both private and social life. Capitalism, which is the modern collective form of "mammonism," is at the root of imperialism, militarism, class wars, and world wars. Ragaz refers frequently to St. Francis as one who embodied the ideal of poverty and who turned against the god of mammonism. It is mammonism which is the root cause of the care or anxiety against which Jesus warns. But in the revolution symbolized by the Sermon on the Mount mammonism will be defeated through the poverty of the Kingdom of God. Ragaz writes: The 'poverty' of the Sermon on the Mount is not an institution, but a principle, not a new form, but a new atmosphere, which arises out of the revolution of Christ. Jl: is the overcoming of mammonism through the Kingdom of God, and the new society of man. For this the whole Christian community must pioneer. But it must go out from there and penetrate the world, and this is the world revolution that is now coming [Bergpredigt, p 149; see pp 132-49 for the whole discussion]. The Kingdom of God is in Opposition to mammonism, but also to violence and power. Ragaz is convinced that Jesus' teachings about reconciliation and nonresistance forbid both war and capital punishment. But he is reluctant to make a law of these teachings in the way Tolstoy did. Jesus' word is no law but a way of freedom for the sons and daughters of God. Jesus is not speaking against the form of violence, but against the principle of violence. When Jesus speaks about turning the other cheek or going the second mile, he is not laying down a literal rule, but rather a principle or symbol. His teaching about nonviolence is a symbol of what one's attitude and conduct should be in the face of violence [Ragaz, Von Christus zu Marx--von Marx zu Christus (Hamburg: Furch Verlag, 1972), p 168; Bergpredigt, pp 55, 78-85]. A predominant note in Ragaz's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is that its emphasis is social and political as well as in-

94

History of Interpretation

dividualistic. The Sermon is the magna charta of private life, but it is also the order of life of the Kingdom of God and as such it applies to political life. The "individualism" of the Sermon on the Mount must be seen within the context of the Kingdom of God. Like the prophets, Jesus proclaimed social justice as a constituent of the Kingdom. While one should be cautious in speaking of "social" in the contemporary sense, nevertheless, the entire Gospel as a whole is a social gospel. To give the Sermon on the Mount an exclusively individualistic interpretation is to distort it because it, as well as every basic principle of the Gospels, has a social meaning [examples of Ragaz's emphasis upon the social dimension of the Gospels are: Bergpredigt, pp 48, 55, 128, 146; Die Bibel: Eine Deutung, p 128; Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p 15]. While Ragaz speaks of the Kingdom of God as present and future and while he says that it will be realized through God's power, he believes that it will come to this world and men will behold the new revolution. Ragaz says that the essential message of the Bible is the Kingdom of God for the world and its coming to the earth. Moreover, the outlines of this new order are closely akin to socialism. "In the Kingdom of God the whole of socialism is contained." In the message of the Kingdom of God the truth of Christianity and the truth of socialism are intimately related. The new heaven of Christianity and the new earth of socialism are joined in the message of the Kingdom so that it is difficult to distinguish the one from the other [Von Christus zu Marx, pp 190-202]. Ragaz's attempt to relate socialism and Christianity and his vision of the revolution of the Kingdom of God has led to the charge that he has equated socialism with the Christian Gospel. Whatever one's judgment of Ragaz may be, he cannot miss his prophetic concern. His writings represent a Weckruf to a new order of existence in which "the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ." But finally it is the Sermon on the Mount which is fundamental to Ragaz's theology and social ethics. The Sermon transcends every Christology, dogmatic, ethics, religion, and even Christianity. It is this freedom from every theology and religion which makes it the great sign of the revolution of the world as well as of ethics and religion. While the Sermon on the Mount is not the last and only form of the message of the Kingdom of God and while we may read too much into it, nevertheless, the whole of the Gospel, and even Christ himself, must be understood in terms of the Sermon on the Mount [Bergpredigt, pp 193-4]. 26

THE MANSONS

While the two well-known British New Testament scholars, T. W. Manson and William Manson, have not written any monographs on the Sermon on the Mount, they have discussed it in a number of their writings. Of the two, William Manson has written

The Mansons

95

more extensively on the Sermon on the Mount, and we will turn to him first. WILLIAM MANSON William Manson' s basic approach to the religious and absolute ethic of Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount is that it must be interpreted within the context of grace. The Sermon begins with the theme of gospel or grace in the Beatitudes. The fact that the Kingdom of Heaven is promised to the poor, the sorrowful, the hungry, the persecuted, is clear evidence of Jesus' emphasis upon the note of grace. But this is true not only of the Beatitudes; it characterizes the entire Sermon. Manson observes: "Here clearly, as the forefront position of the Beatitudes indicates, it is in grace that the Christian revelation begins, and it is on grace that it rests--a point which must not be overlooked in the constructing of any part of the Matthew-Sermon" [Jesus the Messiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1946), p 116]. But now a question arises when we inquire about the qualifications of spirit which the inheritors of the Kingdom are seen to exhibit. Do the blessed possess antecedent virtues or excellences of character? or do they win or acquire on their own the Kingdom of God? Or are we dealing here with a doctrine of predestination whereby Jesus promises the Kingdom to the predestined elect? Manson rejects the above alternatives and comes to what he regards as the "real core of the whole matter." Jesus in the Beatitudes is characterizing and pronouncing as blessed not those who possess antecedent states or qualities of character but those who exhibit certain responses or reactions when the Gospel of the Kingdom is presented to them. The sense of need, the sorrow, the humility, the soul hunger of the Beatitudes are results produced by the gospelmessage. In other words, Jesus regards the Gospel itself as the true reagent which brings out the basic character of the individual [Wm Manson, Jesus and the Christian (London: James Clarke, 1967), PP 53-4]. A second problern which Manson raises concerns Jesus' demand of "righteousness" as defined in the section on the Law (Matt. 5:2148). The movement from the grace of the Beatitudes to the moral requirement of what follows expresses the true order of things. The coming of the Kingdom of God implies the apprehension of both God's love or grace and His moral requirement. In the section on the Law Jesus is speaking to those who already know him through the Gospel, and whom he now means to perfect in holiness. For Jesus it is the Gospel which produces the ethic. The ethic is response to God's forgiveness, love, and holiness. Manson writes: 'I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven. ' Love, as here presented, is the highest thing that men are taught of God, and what Jesus is formulating is

96

History of Interpretation not an abstract ideal of righteousness per se, but the life to which men are called in response to t~redeeming love of God and as sons of God, sharers in His spirit [Jesus the Messiah, p 125].

This brings us to the problern of the Sermon on the Mount' s practicality and possibility of achievement. Mansan suggests that the question of what is possible is not the first question which we need to ask. Rather, our first question must be, What is the will of God? This was the motive which inspired Jesus at every point of his teaching. Moreover, this is the only possibility if we are ever to know God. Only by being confronted by the will of God can we know the radical nature of any truly religious experience--penitence, grace, the forgiveness of sins, hope, blessedness, life [Jesus and the Christian, p 56; Jesus the Messiah, pp 130-1]. But this is not a principle for contemplation, but for action. The teaching of Jesus is meant to be applied. But we must recognize that even the best life will fall short of the ultimate ideal, and it may be impracticable for organized society within the structure of its function. Nevertheless, only an absolute ideal has the capacity to inaugurate and sustain repentance, or supply a norm whereby society can be judged in reference to its direction and goals. However, there remains the problern of the social relevance of such absolute ideals as nonresistance to evil, giving to all who ask, and the abjuring of worldly cares and interests. Mansan suggests that these seem to set up not an impossible, but an anarchic ideal of conduct. These commandments have the intention of revealing what perfect trust in God and love to man really mean with regard to the spirit of our actions. When we confront the necessity for public justice, good government, and the defense of the weak against the strong, we will find that the absolute demands of Jesus are not easily applicable to these areas. To follow his commandments literally would overthrow the foundations of law and order, and defeat the good which the state exists to serve. It would appear un-Christian to press the Christian absolute upon orders of life which stand outside of the powers of the Kingdom of God. Manson concludes: But so long as the Kingdom of God only intersects our mundane existence, and does not fill the whole sphere of it, there will be limits to what can be demanded of the state in its name, and to what can be set up as definition of social duty. What the Christian ethic does here is not to provide a law for society, but to create a tension in its midst which cannot but have transforming results. The Kingdom of Heaven is as leaven. Thus indirectly, not directly, politics and law, the social and the economic ordering of life, and the principles governing our international relations all come at last under the sign of the Kingdom which Jesus revealed [Jesus the Messiah, p 133].

The Mansons

97

In one of his earliest works Manson defines the character of Jesus' ethic as the Law of the Kingdom of God and sets it in the context of grace without which we cannot fathom its "practicality." He says: Jf the ethic of Jesus is high, if it cannot be woven tagether with the ways of the world, it is because it is the law of the Kingdom of God, and needs to be envisaged in that new context of grace, resource and power. Because it is the law of the Kingdom of God, it cannot simply be added like a piece of new cloth on to the old fabric of the world's life, or be poured like new wine into old bottles. 1t is in itself destructive of the old forms and fashions.. It needs to create new institutions and moulds for itself. It exists, first and last, in a Divine context of redemptive and regenerative forces. Jf we take it out of that context or if we forget what that context means, we need not wonder if it seems impracticable [Wm Manson, Christ' s View of- the Kingdom of God (London: James Clarke, 1918), pp 116-7].

T. W. MANSON

T. W. Manson's most sustained discussion of the Sermon on the Mount is in his Ethics and the Gospel [NY: Scribner's, 1960] in the chapter, "Jesus and the Law of Moses." As the context suggests, he is interested in Jesus' understanding of the Jewish Law of his day, and Manson believes that there is no better focusing point for such a study than the Sermon on the Mount. Accepting the familiar four-source analysis of the Synoptics, Manson cautions against viewing the Evangelists as "literary hacks" who produced gospels by stringing other people's work together. They were genuine composers and were endowed with the same creative capacity as poets, musicians, or artists. He proceeds to outline the modern critical position as stated by Dibelius in The Sermon on the Mount. He digresses from Dibelius' conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount is made up by combining single sayings which Jesus uttered on various occasions to different people. This is only true to a degree because there are sections of the Sermon, e. g., in chapter 5, where there is a systematic treatment of a number of commandments in the Jewish Law. This is not a collection of separate sayings, but likely comes from Jesus hirnself as he dealt with these commandments at once and not in a series of separate sayings. The same is true for chapter 6 where there is a collection of three sayings about various kinds of religious observances. Manson states that the first task is to understand what the Sermon as a whole and as it stands is trying to say. He feels that Windisch's analysis has been the most fruitful in this regard.

98

History of Interpretation

The opening verses of Matt. 5 show that the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to the disciples and not to mankind in general. Thus we dare not glibly conclude that the Sermon can be simply accepted and applied in such areas as politics and economics. It does not deal directly with these wider social areas. "The Sermon is not saying: 'This is how men in general should live if they really want to build the Kingdom of God on earth.' It is saying: 'This is how you who are in the Kingdom of God must live if your · citizenship is to be a reality'" [Ethics ... , p 51]. Mansan suggests that the new life described in the Sermon on the Mount is divided into three main sections, and that this division is based upon an ancient maxi.m in the Pike Aboth, the Sayings of the Fathers, which is a popular part of rabbinie literature. There we are told that the world rests upon three pillars: the Law, the worship, and the "imparting of kindnesses." The Sermon on the Mount takes these fundamentals of Judaism and restates them as fundamentals of the New Israel living under the New Covenant. According to Mansan the basic divisions of the Sermon are: the New Law (5:17-48), the New Standard of Worship (6:1-34), and the New Standard of Corporate Solidarity (7:1-12) [Ethics ... , p 52]. After briefly discussing each of the above sections, Mansan concludes that the Sermon on the Mount does in the main give a fair picture of Jesus' attitude to, and his understanding of, the Jewish spiritual heritage. Much in the Sermon is paralleled in Jewish sources. However, the Sermon on the Mount takes the best and deepest things in Judaism and adds to them the still deeper insights of Jesus which are in essence the things embodied in his messianic ministry. Mansan suggests that Jesus' summation of the New Law is in the commandment: "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." The ultimate standard is God Himself, but the actual content of the Law shows that knowledge of the Father is through the Son. Jesus' words, "But I say to you," point to him as the bearer of authority. Moreover, Jesus' instruction in the Sermon on the Mount is paralleled in his conduct. The Sermon on the Mount is not a sermon that says, "Do as I say and not as I do." Jt is this integrity and standard of conduct that Jesus demands of his followers. They must not merely keep free from evil, but they must show in their lives a positive quality akin to the goodness of God. The challenge of "Be ye perfect ... " is to produce words and deeds of a quality like that which we see in Jesus, and to follow him. 27

AMOS N. WILDER In his essay on the Sermon on the Mount in The Jnterpreter's

Amos N. Wilder

99

Bible, Wilder first discusses its literary and historical analysis and then its interpretation and relevance. In analyzing the sources and comparing the Sermon in Matthew and in Luke, Wilder concludes that a previously existing source containing a discourse of Jesus underlies the Sermon as reported in Matthew and Luke. This discourse began with the Beatitudes, · urged the love of enemies and nonresistance, warned against judging, and concluded with the saying concerning the tree and its fruits and the final parable of the builders ["The Sermon on the Mount, " The Interpreter's Bible, vol VII (NY: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951),pt58].

The material common to Matthew and Luke makes up a little less than half of the total content of the Sermon. In the remainder there are two rather fully elaborated sections for which there is little or no parallel in Luke. The first is Matt. 5:~7-48 which consists of six contrasts between Jesus' teaching and that of contemporary interpreters of the Law. The second, Matt. 6:1-18 consists of three contrasts regarding religious practice. Thus Matthew is apparently using material which Luke did not know or chose not to use. Wilder feels that it is more likely that this material came to Matthew independently. He concludes: The picture of the composition of the great discourse is then the following: Matthew has taken the sermon source represented in Luke 6 as his framework, finding in it his beginning (the Beatitudes) and ending (the parable of the builders). In this framework he has incorporated his two sequences (roughly, Matt. 5:17-37 and 6:1-18) and other lesser units of various provenance, no doubt hirnself supplying a certain number of the connecting transitions ["The Sermon," in Interpreter's Bible, p 159]. Another special feature of Matthew is his interest in the relation of the Gospel to the Law or the Tradition. Wilder believes that the Sermon on the Mount reflects the varied impulses within the early Christian community as they dealt with the question of its relationship to the Jewish Law. Wilder writes: Matthew has more or less consciously set Jesus over against Moses as a new lawgiver. The New Law for the church is set over against the Old Law of God's people, not as abolishing but fulfilling it.. . . It follows that Matthew conceives of this teaching as having a rather concretely legislative character.... Emphasis moreover is laid on obedience, performance, good works ["The Sermon," p 160]. Wilder is very cognizant of the eschatological context of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus believed that the new age was imminent-the Kingdom of God was "at hand." His ethics were the ethics of the Kingdom. This, however, seemingly does not account for Jesus' silence regarding social questions such as civic and political life

100

History of Interpretation

and responsibility. Wilder says that Jesus was speaking to a group which was largely a simple rural and small-town society ["The Sermon," p 162]. While Jesus spoke as a phophet and a teacher, he went beyond the prophets and the wise men because of his consciousness that the Kingdom was drawing nigh. Indeed he was the bearer of the Kingdom of God, its voice and agent. His ethics is that of the new age and the new covenant. The Sermon on the Mount is directed to those who have already begun to enter into the new age and who have begun to share its new powers. Jesus 1 eschatological viewpoint in no sense reduces his ethics to a relatively unimportant position. His expectation of an early end of the present order does not imply that his ethical teaching was an interim ethic relevant only to an emergency Situation. It can best be described as an ethic of the present Kingdom of God or a new covenent ethic. Wilder says: Thus the ethic is not an interim ethic. It is not even a repentance ethic in the sense that it calls for 1fruits worthy of repentance, 1 i. e., conduct evidencing the changed disposition. Rather, it can be best designated as an ethic of the present Kingdom of God or a new-covenant ethic. It is not primarily an ethic for the relations and conduct of the future transcendental Kingdom. Nor is it a Kingdom ethic in the sense that its practice would admit to the Kingdom nor that it would 1build 1 the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom ethic in the sense that it represents the righteousness of those living in the days of the new covenant and empowered and qualified by the reconciliation and redemption of that age [Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, rev ed (NY: Harper, 1950), pp 1601 .

The eschatological context of Jesus 1 ethic does not divorce it from historical-political realities. The eschatological element is the counterpart and overtone of the historical element. Creative eschatology constitutes a body of myth which bears immediately upon the present situation. Mythopoetic langnage is indispensable in expressing faith 1 s deepest insights. What cannot be expressed in immediate and realistic terms, can only be adequately conveyed by the imaginative terms of faith, in the case of Jesus 1 ethics, by eschatological categories. Eschatological terminology must be viewed as a mythopoetic way of underlining the urgency and ultimacy of what Jesus is doing in the present. It is this activity that determines not only Jesus urgent call to personal discipleship but also the general ethical-principles in the Sermon on the Mount [Eschatology, pp 56, 161-7]. How shall we understand the modern relevance and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus 1 teachings in the Sermon were conditioned by special circumstances and a special outlook. They did not constitute a set of laws, nor were they general principles of universal application. Consequently, we face a task of reinterpretation. We must see that most of the drastic ethics of Jesus

Archibald M. Hunter

101

had their origin in the personal situation of Jesus' ministry. Our reinterpretation must have a biographical background. Thus Wilder writes: "We recover, then, an historical, a biographical setting for the so-called ethical absolutes. Their generality of application vanishes, the interim aspect vanishes. They are occasional utterances to particular persons which the sacred records have lifted out of the obscurity of their original moment" [Eschatology, p 192]. Since Jesus' utterances did not constitute a set of laws, we are free to apply them to our own situation. The Christian of today will be guided, not by any single saying of Jesus, but by his whole life and teaching, bearing in mind the disparity between his situation and ours. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the experience and counsel of other Christians, he will be in a position to deal with specific choices. Christians will differ in their responses; some will feel called to bear costly witness while others will not feel so obligated. At any rate, it is evident that whenever the Sermon on the Mount is taken seriously, there will be conflicts with current social standards and values. Let us conclude with these Observations of Wilder: Even where the Christian is not led to break with the patterns and institutions in which he is involved, he will be constantly testifying against them in word and deed. The gospel and the church represent an invasion of the world by the power and grace of God. There cannot but be collision and costly witness here. Thus those who seek to live by the insights and directives of the Sermon on the Mount will constitute a continual ferment in society, breaking out here and there in open defiance and non-cooperation. That is the meaning of the figures of the salt, the light, and the leaven ["The Sermon," Jnteryreter's Bible, p 164]. 28

ARCHIBALD M. HUNTER

In his characteristic concise and lucid style, A. M. Hunter has written A Pattern for Life, which is an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Beginning with a source analysis of the Sermon, Hunter believes that it gathers together sayings of Jesus that were uttered on many different occasions. It is a composite of fragments from perhaps twenty discourses. Following B. H. Streeter's foursource analysis of the synoptic Gospels, Hunter says that it is probable that Luke's Sermon on the Plain represents the Sermon as it stood in Q. Matthew incorporated both the Q and the L Sermons plus other Q sayings paralleled elsewhere in Luke. Hunter concludes further that Matthew had the needs of catechumens in mind when he composed the Sermon. These teachings of Jesus showed how God meant the men of the Kingdom to live. They served as a summary and design of life in the Kingdom of God [A Pattern for Life (Philadelphi-a: Westininster Pr, 1953), pp 11-4; page references to this book].

are

102

History of Interpretation

The style of the Sermon on the Mount is poetical, pictorial, and proverbial. Thus Hunter believes that we should steer clear of a too-literalistic interpretation of the Sermon. A distinction between mandata and exempla may be helpful. Mandata are moral imperatives stating deep, broad principles; exempla are illustrations of these principles in action. "Resist not evil" and "swear not at all" are imperatives stating principles. In the former Jesus is stating the principle of non-vindictiveness in personal relations, not nonresistance to evil in any and every circumstance. In the latter, he is calling for absolute sincerity in speech, not prohibiting oaths in all circumstances. To confound the letter with the spirit, as the Anabaptists, the Qiakers, and Tolstoy have done, is to land oneself in absurdity (pp 15-20). There are three qualities which make the Sermon on the Mount unique and that show the originality of Jesus as a moral teacher: its insight into essential morality, its inwardness, and its universality. Jesus had the genius to go to the heart of the moral question-to obedience to God out of a pure heart. He internalized morality, saying that good fruit comes only from a good tree. The Sermon on the Mount is catholic in its scope, transcending all exclusiveness and particularism. This is exemplified by the Lord's Prayer which is devoid of anything narrow and nationalistic (pp 24-6). In a chapter on the Sermon and the Gospel, Hunter refutes the Liberal tendency that identified the Sermon on the Mount with the essence of Christianity. Likewise, he criticizes the point of view which imagines the Sermon to be a collection of plain, practical rules for right living which are a simple possibility and which are relatively devoid of theology. In the New Testament Hunter discerns a two-fold pattern--one theological, the other ethical: the Gospel which the apostles preached; and the Commandment, growing out of the Gospel, which they taught to those who accepted the Gospel. This pattern is evident in a typical Pauline epistle. It begins with some aspect of the Gospel and concludes with a "practical" section setting forth the moral standards required of believers. Just so, the sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount represent not Jesus' "Gospel" but his "Commandment." They are his design for living in the Kingdom (pp 100-3). Hunter finally examines the Sermon on the Mount and the ethic of Jesus. There are four theses about the ethic of Jesus: (1) it is a religious ethic; (2) it is a disciples' ethic; (3) it is a prophetic ethic; and (4) it is an unattainable ethic. Jesus' ethic is religious in that it is rooted and grounded in the "good News" of the Kingdom of God. This means that it is an eschatological ethic but not an interim ethic as Schweitzer believed. Schweitzer read the Gospels in such a way that he ignored those passages which imply that the Kingdom has already come. Con-

Archibald M. Hunter

103

trary to Schweitzer, Hunter believes that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom as a present reality in his ministry, and not as an impending catastrophe. Following the understanding of C. H. Dodd, Hunter writes: "The difference is that we find the key to the Gospels in 'realized,' not in 'futurist,' eschatology" (pp 106-8). The ethic of Jesus is essentially a disciples' ethic. It was addressed to the Twelve and to that immediate wider community of Jesus' followers. "lt was given as a way of life for the men of the Kingdom, not for mankind at large." We must remernher this when we consider the questions of the Sermon's relevance and practibility today. Jesus' teaching primarily concerns committed Christians. Moreover, we Christians are not invited to rise to these heights in our own strength (pp 108-10). Hunter's third thesis states that the Sermon on the Mount is prophetic and not legal. The teachings of Jesus are not in keeping with our usual understanding .of laws. Laws are formulated on calculations as to how most men may be expected to behave. It would be useless to enact laws which would pressure people to be saints. But this is precisely what the Sermon on the Mount does. Consequently, it is contrary to our definition of laws. But it deviates from our understanding of laws in another respect. A court can judge an overt crime that has been committed, but (though it attempts to) it cannot deal with men's intentions and inward disposition. As an example, Jesus' statement that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, puts judgment out of the reach of any human tribunal. Only God can do that. Therefore, we cannot regard Jesus as a second Moses nor the Sermon on the Mount as a new code of laws. He does not traffic, as the legalist does, in rules and regulations to cover every conceivable act of conduct. He lays down deep and far-reaching principles. He enunciates the ideals and aims that ought to govern the lives of men who are living in that new order of grace which he calls the Kingdom of God. In short, the teaching of Jesus as we have it in the Sermon resembles 'a compass rather than an ordnance map; it gives direction rather than directions. ' It is a design, not a code, for life in the Kingdom [pp 110-2). lf the ethic of Jesus is unattainable, how can it have any practical relevance? As a design for living, the Sermon on the Mount teils us the following: (1) the kind of people we ought to be; (2) the influence we ought to exert in the world; (3) the way in which, as Christians, we ought to behave socially; (4) the kind of worship we ought to render; (5) the attitude we ought to have towards earthly and heavenly treasures; and (6) the manner in which we should treat our fellowmen.

104

History of Interpretation

Hunter does not subscribe fully to those, who like Kittel and Stange, view the Sermon as showing us our sense of failure and despair and thus preparing us for the saving message of the Cross. However, he says that we are not asked to scale the heights of the Sermon in our own unaided strength: we are offered the continuing presence, through the Spirit, of him who promised, "Lo, I am with you alway." The Sermon also gives us stimulus and guidance for the Christian life. Its standards and principles need to be before us in mak:ing decisions and resolving moral dilemmas. "In the last resort, the way in which a man will respond to the demand of Jesus will depend on his own conscience (which the Sermon will greatly sensitize and sharpen), the guidance of the Spirit, and the shared wisdom of his fellow-Christians." In conclusion, Hunter returns once more to the Sermon as "Design for Life." "Though we, no more than the first disciples, can ever hope to reach the ideal in this fallen world, we are summoned day by day, with the help of the Spirit to make the effort. For it is Design for Life in the Kingdom of God" [PP 113-6]. 29

JOHN WICK BOWMAN

In The Gospel from the Mount [Philadelphia: Westminster Pr, 1957] Bowman says that he is endeavoring to popularize interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount that were given to students over a period of some thirty years. Roland W. Tapp, a former student and research colleague, assisted Bowman in the preparation of the book. In spite of the author's claim, this is not a popular wozk, but makes a contribution to Sermon on the Mount research. While an overall thesis is not readily discernible, nevertheless this study approaches the Sermon on the Mount with creative and sometimes unique insights. Bowman believes that the Beatitudes in Matthew represent an original Aramaie poem in two stanzas of four verses each. The main theme of the Sermon on the Mount is grace or gospel, and not law. This appears in the Beatitudes where the blessings are conferred by God alone upon man. As a whole, the Beatitudes announce God's blessing upon certain stages attained in the development of the personality of the Christian pilgrim on the upward way. Bowman's emphasis upon grace is evident in his summary statement regarding the first "stanza" of the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-6). He writes: in stanza one of the Beatitudes it is intended that we observe the moral or spiritual progress of a single individual adjudged as representative of the 'sons of the Ki.ngdom.' The stages of that progress are, successively, first, an awakening to one' s state of inadequacy and moral poverty in the light of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 4:23), however imperfectly

John Wiek Bowman

105

this Gospel be understood at first; secondly, the determination to 'turn' to God in repentance, accompanied by the assurance of divine forgiveness; thirdly, the adoption of a constant attitude of trust in God alone, together with a sense of progressive achievement in the acquisition of the 'land' (Kingdom); and finally, the earnest Ionging to acquire the total 'righteousness' which constitutes 'salvation' for man [The Gospel, PP 35-6]. The ideas in the first four Beatitudes which comprise the first stanza were taken from the prophetic writings of the Old Testament where they abound in profusion. They are not an "interim ethic" applicable to a limited period under ideal conditions, but rather a normal series of reactions on the part of men to situations arising in a very imperfect world and likely to prove normative for such Situations as long as time lasts [Bowman, "An Exposition of the Beatitudes," J of Bible & Religion 15 (1947), 166]. When we turn to the second "stanza" of the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:7-10), we are in a different milieu. Now the positive note replaces the negative, and the apparent feeling of emptiness gives way to the portrayal of the richness of a personality capable of making a vital contribution to the life and uplift of mankind. In his article on the Beatitudes cited above, Bowman offers the unique observation that the second stanza's structure and content are derived in toto from Psalm 85:10: Me rcy and Truth are met together; Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other. This conclusion, which he develops further, simplifies both the exegetical and critical problems of the second stanza ["An Exposition, p 166; for further discussion of this relationship, see Bowman, "Travelling the Christian Way--The Beatitudes," Review & Expositor 54 (1957), 388-92]. The four Beatitudes of this "stanza" provide a basis for the understanding of the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed the remainder of the Sermon constitutes Jesus' own interpretation of each of the Beatitudes of this "stanza" in turn. Thus the Beatitudes assume a central and decisive position in Bowman's analysis of the Sermon. Let us see how these Beatitudes relate to the remainder of the Sermon. Matt. 5:7 constitutes a social ethic of which "mercy" like to God's is the ruling principle and without which men have no right to expect God's mercy to apply to them. Matt. 5:21-48 is Jesus' exposition and interpretation of this Beatitude dealing with social ethics.

----

Matt. 5:8 pictures true religion of a purified people who are worthy to enter into the temple of God and to enjoy his fellowship. Similarly all of Matt. 6 is concerned with Jesus presentation of true religion.

106

History of Interpretation

Matt. 5:9 concerns evangelism or the making of peace through the gospel of peace, while 5:10 represents the acquisition of that righteousness which is the true image of God and which is at once salvation for man and his chief end. Matt. 7 deals extensively with the acquisition of that righteousness which constitutes salvation for man and is the proper theme of evangelism [The Gospel, pp 37-43]. The remainder of Bowman's study is a working out of the above themes from Matt. 5:21 through chapter 7. He has provided his own translation of the Sermon, and this adds a note of novelty and freshness. Another notable aspect of Bowman's work is his frequent references to the rabbinical tradition and its relation to the Sermon on the Mount. 30

CARL F. H. HENRY

Carl F. H. Henry is one of the best-known and most articulate spokesmen of American evangelicalism. In his Christian Personal Ethics [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957; page references are to this work] there is a section on the Sermon on the Mount in which . he discusses seven interpretati.ons of the Sermon [see above, p 1-2]. The last of these is the Reformed for which Henry hirnself is an apologist. Henry begins by referring to a major tenet of Reformed theology, viz., the unity of the divine covenant with man. God's revelation does not change as time passes nor does it contradict itself. God's ethical norms are constant and authoritative for all men at all times in all places. The moral law expressed in Scripture forms an organic unity. Matt. 5:17-20 substantiates this view and determines the approach to the entire Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not revise or negate the Mosaic Law but declared that it is eternally valid. His ethic and the Old Testament ethic are in harmony and represent a basic continuity. "The Sermon brings into clear relief the eternal oneness of the Law" (p 310). Proceeding from this basis, Henry gives evidence of the points of continuity between the Sermon on the Mount and the Decalogue. There are direct references or allusions to each of the Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount with the exception of the sabbath commandment. But this does not mean that we can dismiss the sabbath commandment as belanging to the ceremonial law alone and therefore as wholly abrogated by Jesus. Nowhere does Jesus abolish the Sabbath, and there is no question of its validity on the basis of God's command. Thus, without question, biblical ethics exemplifies a fundamental unity and continuity. Henry concludes: "lf we turn to the ethical teaching of Jesus as a whole we find, even if in summary form, remarkable evidence of Jesus' assertion of the permanent validity of the Commandments.... The ethic of Eden and the ethic of Sinai and the ethic of the Mount of Beatitudes and the ethic of future judgment of the race stand in essential unity and c ontinuity" (p 315).

Carl F. H. Henry

107

The above view, however, does not exclude the unique contribution that Jesus brought to Hebrew-Christian ethics. While Jesus had the highest respect for the Law, he did advance beyond it. Henry says: "He assigns to hirnself the right to criticize the Law itself, not in the sense of destroying it, but of fulfilling it by bringing out its inner moral demand and by exhibiting its higher intent" (p 316). This advance is also evidenced by Jesus' intense inward emphasis. He emphasizes the spirituality of the Law and looks behind words and actions to the very thoughts and intentions of the heart. But he goes beyond this. He regards hirnself as the climactic disclosure of Old Testament revelation. He stands at the center of the Sermon on the Mount in a way in which Moses never stood related to the Old Testament Law. He claims the right to interpret the Law because he bears an authority which transcends and is independent of the Law. This brings us to the question of the place of grac~ in the Sermon on the Mount. Henry says that grace is to be found in both the Decalogue and the Sermon, and the two revelations düfer in degree, not in kind. Both were given by the Redeemer-God. But though there is grace in the Sermon on the Mount, one does not find the doctrine of the cross nor substitutionary atonement there. Moreover, the Sermon makes no judgment as to the possibility of its fulfillment in man's present condition. The note of grace is marginal in the Sermon on the Mount, but the Sermon is pointing toward it and may be the "last step" before its proclamation. A final theme with which Henry deals is the contemporary relevance of the Sermon on the Mount. Both the Reformed and the Anabaptist traditions recognize the validity of the Sermon as a rule of practice for the regenerate believer who shares in God's redemptive grace. They differ, however, on the question of the applicability of the Sermon to all ethical relationships. The Anabaptists maintain that the Sermon is an authoritative norm for both group and personal relationships, while the Reformed tradition confines its signüicance to personal relations. The Sermon on the Mount is a guide in the person-to-person sphere and in the immediate "one-and-one" neighbor relationships, but it does not deal with the believer's broader social relationships. Contrary to the Anabaptist view, the Reformed view does not find in the Sermon on the Mount normative statements about public oaths or war. As Henry says: "The Sermon gives an individualistic articulation of ethics-dealing with my relations to the person at my side, and not with the !arger question of my duty to social groups in the order of economics and politics, or to humanity as a whole" (p 324). Based on his Reformed hermeneutic, it is evident that Henry does not regard the Sermon on the Mount as a complete ethical norm that is applicable to all situations. The Sermon does not contain the whole of Christian ethics. Consequently, it must be supplemented by the Epistles and other biblical teaching where the ethical problern is set forth in broader dimensions. It is in the Epistles of Paul and Peter that we move beyond the one-to-one re-

108

History of Interpretation

lationship and see the implications of Christian ethics for state, community, and economic relations. In a word, any Christian social ethics, as well as personal ethics, must be formulated in view of the whole of biblical revelation. This does not mean that the Sermon on the Mount is diminished because it remains the most comprehensive ethical discourse of Jesus. Henry concludes: It contains the character and conduct which Jesus commends to bis followers, the demand which the nature and will of God make upon man, the fundamental law of the Kingdom, and the ideal and perfect standard. It is the ultimate formula of ethics for which ideal human nature was fashioned by creation and is destined in eternity. Fallen nature is justified in Christ in conformity to it, and redeemed nature approximates it by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God (P 326].

31

JOACHIM JEREMIAS

Jeremias' Die Bergpredi~t (The Sermon on the Mount, tr Norman Perrin (Philadelphia:- Fortress Pr, 1963); page references are to this ed] is a small but significant contribution to Sermon on the Mount interpretation. He begins with the question of the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount and discusses three of the answers that have been given. The first is the perfectionist conception which holds that in the Sermon Jesus tells his disciples what he requires of them. He lays before them the will of God as it should determine their way of life. Jeremias points to Hans Windisch as one who set forth this position with ruthless honesty. For Windisch the Sermon on the Mount is as much an obedience ethic as that of the Old Testament. 1t is law and not gospel. His conclusion was that the Sermon stands fully in the context of the Old Testament and of Judaism. Jeremias differs with Windisch in that he believes that there are fundamental differences between the demands of Jesus and the ethic of late Judaism. Furthermore, Jeremias states that Jesus was not a teacher of the Law, or a preacher of wisdom like that of some of bis contemporaries. Instead bis message went beyond the bounds of late Judaism. A second answer to the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount is that of Lutheran orthodoxy which claims that it is an impossible ideal. Its high demands lead us to despair, because we realize that they cannot be fulfilled. Indeed this was Jesus' intention. He wanted to confront his hearers with the realization that it was impossible to fulfill the demands of God by their own strength. He wants to lead them through their experience of failure to despair of themselves. Consequently, the Sermon on the Mount drives men to the cross as the way out of their dilemma. 1t is praeparatio evangelica. Jeremias' criticism of this position is that it is a misreading of the Sermon because nowhere is there a clear statement upon which such a theory could be built. Rather, the astounding fact is that

Joachim Jeremias

109

Jesus expected that his disciples would do what he commanded. His teachings apply to everyone who is a foliower of Christ. The conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount makes this especially clear. A third understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is that it is an interim ethic--a view set forth especially by Weiss and Schweitzer [see Section 15, "Consistent Eschatology," for discussion of this view]. Jeremias is more sympathetic with this view than the former two because all of Jesus' preaching is directed to the Eschaton, and the dynamic of eschatology lies behind every word of his. However, this view is too extreme because Jesus is not a fanatical enthusiast whose ethic is an expression of anxiety in the face of imminent catastrophe. Rather, the dominating thing for Jesus is something quite different. It is knowledge of the presence of salvation. The decisive accent is not on human effort, but upon the fact that the salvation of God has come. Thus Jesus did not proclaim an exceptional law relevant for a brief interim, but his words have validity not only until the Eschaton, but also after it (Mark 13:31). In his second chapter Jeremias deals with the ongms of the Sermon on the Mount by means of literary and Form criticism. After comparing the Matthaean and Lucan versions of the Sermon, he concludes: "We have, therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, a composition of originally isolated sayings of Jesus.. . • These isolated sayings were first gathered tagether in the form of an Aramaie Sermon on the Plain, out of which the Greek Sermon on the Plain in Luke and the Greek Sermon on the Mount in Matthew have in turn developed" (p 17).

The interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount which Jeremias develops more fully than anyone else is that in its present form it is an early Christian catechism. He begins by referring to C. H. Dodd's observation about kerygma and didache in the earliest Christian preaching [see Section 22]. Jeremias believes that the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, tagether with the Epistle of James, is the classical example of an early Christian didache. But what was the purpose for which this didacM was composed? What was its "Sitz im Leben?" Jeremias concludes that the sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were composed on the basis of perenetic considerations, and that its original function was in catechetical instruction for the pre-baptized, or in post-baptismal instruction for the newly-baptized. "In Luke (6:20-49) this catechism is designed for Gentile Christians and in Matthew (chapters 5-7) for Jewish Christians" (p 23). If one grants that the Sermon on the Mount is an early Christian catechism, then a further deduction must be made. It was preceded by something else. "lt was preceded by the proclamation of the Gospel; and it was preceded by conversion, by a being overpowered by the Good News" (p 23). Jeremias believes that it is only with this presupposition that we can rightly understand the individual sayings of Jesus. Every word of the Sermon on the Mount

History of Interpretation

110

was preceded by something else, and the example of Jesus stands behind all his teachings. This means that the Gospel preceded the demand. Or to state it better: "The sayings of Jesus which have been brought tagether in the Sermon on the Mount are a part of the Gospel" (p 30). The above presupposition also enables us to understand the radical demands of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' call to discipleship is directed to those for whom the power of Satan has already been destroyed by the Gospel, and who already are members of the Kingdom of God and radiate its reality. The incompleteness of the Sermon can also be understood in this context. The teachings of Jesus collected in the Sermon on the Mount are not a complete compendium for Christian discipleship. Rather they are symptoms, signs, examples, of what is implied when the Kingdom of God breaks into the world which is still under sin, death, and the devil. The new life of the disciple should point to the reality of the Kingdom's presence and should testify to the world that the Kingdom of God is already dawning. Finally, referring to the triad with which he began, Jeremias summarizes his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount as follows: The sayings of Jesus which have been collected in the Sermon on the Mount are not intended to lay a legal yoke upon Jesus' disciples; neither in the sense that they say: 'You must do all this, in order that you may be blessed' (perfectionist conception); nor in the sense: 'You ought actually to have done all of this, see what poor creatures you are' (theory of the impossible ideal); nor in the sense: 'Now pull yourself together; the final victory is at hand' (interim ethic). Rather, these sayings of Jesus delineate the lived faith. They say: You are forgiven; you are the child of God; you belang to the Kingdom. The sun of righteousness has risen over your life. You no langer belang to yourself; rather, you belang to the city of God, the light of which shines in the darkness. Now you may also experience it: out of the thankfulness of a redeemed child of God a new life is growing. This is the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount [P 34]. 32

HARVEY K. McARTHUR

McArthur's Understanding the Sermon on the Mount [NY: Harper, 1960] is one of the more significant recent studies. He says that his primary purpose is to deal with the basic practical, historical, and theological problems raised by a thoughtful reading of the Sermon on the Mount. The book is especially noteworthy for its historical examination of the Sermon's interpretation. McArthur deals with the relation of the Sermon on the Mount to four areas:

Harvey K. McArthur

111

the Mosaic tradition, the Pauline tradition, the Eschaton, ethics. In each section he examines the historical precedents before giving his own conclusions. What was the relation of the ethic in the Sermon on the Mount to that proclaimed by the Mosaic tradition in Judaism? McArthur answers the question by four contentions: (1) Jesus abrogated some aspects of the Pentateuch; (2) he advanced beyond other sections and represented a legitimate development out of the Mosaic tradition; (3) at many and perhaps most points, the ethic of Jesus was paralleled by some of his contemporaries; and (4) the total impact of Jesus' ethic differed significantly from that of his contemporaries. Jesus' ethic differed from that of his contemporaries in four particulars: (1) he eliminated the nonessential and concentrated on the essential more drastically than did his contemporaries; (2) he was unique in the consistently radical character of his demands; (3) the ethic of Jesus was not for an already established society but for heroic individuals and for the New Community which was to consist of such individuals; and (4) he differed from his contemporaries in the personal authority claimed by his handling of the ancient traditions [for full discussion of the above conclusions, see McArthur's Understandi1. the Sermon, pp 26-57; following page references are to this book . A second problern concerns the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline tradition. There seems tobe a different emphasis in the Sermon on the Mount than there is in Paul. The Sermon appears to expound a religion of works, a religion of character, or in some sense, a religion of human achievement. The Pauline emphasis on grace seems to be at variance with this. McArthur addresses himself especially to the Liberal distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus. Much of the "Qiest of the Historical Jesus" presupposed that behind the Christ of the creeds one could recover a much simpler faith, that of Jesus himself. McArthur's alternative to Harnack and liberal Protestantism is that while there is a gulf between the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline tradition, the Christian faith includes both the Sermon itself and the religious faith which arose in response to the Sermon and the remainder of Jesus' ministry, his death and his resurrection. In the light of this perspective the Christian community affirms three things: (1) that while the Sermon may not have presupposed Rom. 1-8 the Christian community does make this presupposition; (2) that the demands of God can be fulfilled only where there has been a prior transformation of life by God's grace and Spirit; and (3) that this transformation has occurred through and because of the life, ministry, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ. McArthur suggests that the Sermon may originally have been proclaimed without any thought of certain distinctively Pauline doctrines. However, today the Christian community must understand it in the framework of the total faith that emerged in response to these events (pp 78-9).

112

History of Interpretation

McArthur suggests further, that after Schweitzer and Bultmann, it is more difficult to make the distinction between the "religion of Jesus" and the "religion about Jesus." If Schweitzer's consistent eschatology is taken seriously, then Jesus must be seen as an apocalyptic figure whose thought is far from simple or intelligible. Bultmann, with his Form critical methodology, his demythologization, and existential interpretation, suggests that we can gain very little historical information about Jesus from the Gospels. The Gospels already represent the kerygma of the early Christian community so that the "religion of Jesus" is indeed the "religion about Jesus" (pp 152-3). McArthur' s third concern is the Sermon on the Mount and eschatology. Did Jesus, as Schweitzer believed, expect history to come to a swift close? Jf so, what effect did this expectation have on his ethics? In the Sermon on the Mount an interim ethic? Can and should the eschatology of Jesus be translated into modern terms, as Bultmann believes? McArthur's conclusions may be summarized in three statements: both eschatological and non-eschatological sanctions appear in the Sermon on the Mount; the imminence of the Eschaton is nowhere stressed in the Sermon, though the Evangelist may have assumed that his portrayal of the general pattern of Jesus' thought supplied this emphasis; and the character of the ethic is nowhere explicitly conditioned by the eschatological expectations, although the silence of Jesus with respect to the problems of social order may have been due, in part, to his expectation of the Eschaton (pp 80-104, 155-8). In his final chapters McArthur deals with the question of the Sermon's relevance. In what sense is it a possibility for the Christian life? He outlines twelve approaches that have been taken to the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount [see above, p 1]. Of these, six are of primary value. They are: the absolutist, hyperbole, general principles, attitudes-not-acts, repentance, and unconditional divine will views. McArthur suggests that a different order may help bring out the significance of these principles. The absolutist insight correctly affirms that the commands are to be taken seriously and that they constitute an inescapable demand upon us. Such an understanding leads to repentance, to the turning of one's life to God. But repentance is not an end in itself. One must turn again to the Sermon on the Mount with the question of how he shall live. The Sermon does not supply a detailed answer, but it indicates the direction in which a life committed to Christ will move. An element of hyperbole will be recognized, but it will not alter the Sermon's radical demands. It must also be understood that the specific injunctions are not as important as the general principles which they reveal. The Christian must remember that Jesus was primarily concerned with attitudes, not acts, although attitudes which do not produce acts are unreal. Finally, the Christian must see that the Sermon pro-

w.

D. Davies

113

claims the unconditioned divine will and must hirnself accept the responsibility of adjusting its precise details to fit the human situations confronted (p 148). Another way to describe the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is to say that Jesus reached out to the limits of human possibility, exploring what life would be like for an individual wholly dedicated to God rather than to hirnself and to the usual prudential considerations. The life committed to the Spirit of God and to His love is the final goal. The details of the Sermon on the Mount are markers on the way to that goal. Our eyes need to be opened to what 'love' may mean in various situations, or whither the guidance of the Spirit will lead us. This is the ftmction of the Sermon on the Mount .••. But the concrete commands of the Sermon are great Iandmarks along the way. They reassure us when we have read the compass aright, and they trouble us when we twist the reading ofthat compass to our own advantage. Let us read and reread the Sermon until our hearts and wills and minds are steeped in its atmosphere. Then let us live with courage but with humility [pp 159-60]. 33

W. D. DAVlES

With few exceptions, W. D. Davies' The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ Pr, 1964; page references are to this work] has been acclaimed for its great learning and erudition. Reviewers have generally praised Davies' extensive knowledge of Judaism. This is a massive and learned study which is not easy reading. Neither is the continuity of the argument easily discerned or followed. A subsequent volume, The Sermon on the Mount, consists of lectures delivered at the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va. These lectures enabled Davies "to set forth in a more accessible and brief form the main lines of the argument in The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount." Davies' intention is to illuminate the setting of the Sermon on the Mount by means of critical historical analysis. Thereupon he takes up the place of the Sermon in Matthew's Gospel, in Jewish messianic expectation, in contemporary Judaism, in the early Church, and in the ministry of Jesus. As for the setting of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, Davies concludes that the Sermon is the "law" of Jesus, the Messiah and Lord, but Matthew avoids the express concept of a New Torah and a New Sinai. He regards Jesus as a teacher of righteousness, but avoids designating him "a New Moses" (p 108). In reference to Jewish messianic expectation, Davies finds

114

History of Interpretation

that there was ambiguity in the Jewish expectation of the Messiah and that this ambiguity has invaded Matthew' s presentation of the Messianic era. Moreover, Matthew's picture of Jesus fulfills only a part of those varied expectations (pp 187-90). In his chapter on the setting of the Sermon on the Mount in contemporary Judaism, Davies discusses Gnosticism and the Dead Sea Sect. He finds no point in Matthew where a direct encounter with Gnosticism is reflected. Anti-Gnosticism was not the reason for Matthew's emphasis on the ethical teachings of Jesus. So we cannot assume that Gnosticism particularly determined Matthew's thought and caused him to construct the Sermon on the Mount (p 207) [also see Davies, The Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ Pr, 1966), p 76]. As for Qllmran, the Sermon on the Mount shows traces of the sectarian influence. But according to Davies, this material was utilized by the Evangelist in the dialogue which particularly concerned the Church of his day, that between Pharisaism and Christianity. He concludes: The sectarians had been given a rigid interpretation of the Law, by the Teacher of Righteousness, which was designed to lead to perfection. There is every reason to believe that Jesus offered an interpretation of the Law which was set over against this, his radicalism standing over against that of Q.Imran. But when Matthew constructed his 'Sermon' he utilized the tradition of the teaching for his own purposes-to set the Christian ethic not over against Q.Imran but over against Pharisaic Judaism, the ethic of the New Israel over against that of the Old.. . • (W]hatever the sectarian influences on Matthew may have been, it would be unwise to look in their direction for the key to Matthew and, especially, the Sermon on the Mount (p 255). Following the section on the Dead Sea Sect, Davies turns to a lengthy discussion of Jamnia, and it is here that he finds the key to the setting of the Sermon on the Mount. He writes: We are now able to sum up our treatment of the structure of the Sermon on the Mount. We cannot certainly connect it with the discussion and activity at Jamnia, but the possibility is a real one that the form of the Sermon on the Mount was fashioned under their impact. It is our suggestion that one fruitful way of dealing with the Sermon on the Mount is to regard it as the Christian answer to Jamnia. Using terms very loosely, the Sermon on the Mount is a kind of Christian, mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there. It is not our intention to deny other formative influences on Matthew. But neither Gnostic nor 'sectarian' pressures are sufficient to account for the massive elevation of the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Apart from the internal demands of the Christian community, it was the necessity to provide a Christian counterpart to 'Jamnia' that best illumines this (p 315).

W. D. Davies

115

The setting of the Sermon on the Mount in the early Church is assessed in relation to Paul, the Q document, other New Testament writings, etc. Davies believes that Paul had access to a tradition of the words of Jesus which constituted for him part of the "law of Christ." Paul like Matthew appealed to these as authoritative. Moreover, both Paul and Matthew viewed the Exodus as a prototype of the greater redemption accomplished by Christ. Paul shared with Matthew a common understanding of Christ and his words. "Thus the Sermon on the Mount would not have appeared to Paul as an alien importation into the faith. Like Matthew, Paul too can speak of a law of Christ, partly, at least, composed of Jesus' words" (p 366). This law of Christ or Law of the Messiah, as Davies calls it, provides a bridge between the first century and the second. Davies rejects the frequent suggestion that the Christianity of the New Testament is a religion of grace while that of the second and later centuries is one of law. As we move from the first-century Church to that of the second there is no break that separates them. Rather, "the Law of the Messiah" provides a continuity between these communities (p 414). Finally, Davies deals with the Sermon's setting in the rmmstry of Jesus. The words of the Sermon on the Mount ultimately lead us back to the one who uttered them, and they are themselves kerygmatic. But we dare never view the event of Christ as an abstraction divorced from life. Nowhere is the Gospel set forth without moral demand. Likewise, nowhere is morality understood apart from the Gospel. The teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are the astringent protection against any Christological interpretatioil in other than moral terms. Despite Matthew's editorialization, the moral demand of Jesus persists in the Sermon on the Mount (pp 433-5). In a brief concluding statement, Davies returns to the tension between gospel and law. The Sermon on the Mount in its setting spans the arch of grace and law. It joins the "works righteousness" of James and the Pauline "justification by grace alone." "lts opening, the Beatitudes, recognizes man' s infinite need for grace, his misery; its absolute demand recognizes man's infinite moral possibilities, his grandeur" (p 440).

Truly, the scope and schalarship of Davies' work is most impressive. However, one must be sympathetic with Samuel Sandmel's comment that Davies has chosen to write on the setting instead of the content of the Sermon on the Mount, thereby selecting location and form over content. For Sandmel this is a tragedy that a great scholar has by choice written a book that is tangential, and falls short of central signüicance [Theology Today, vol 23 (July 1966), 293-4].

History of Interpretation

116 34

JEWISH INTERPRETATIONS CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE

The chief sources presenting Montefiore's views on the Sermon on the Mount are The Synoptic Gospels, published in 1909 and considerably revised in 1927, and Rabbinie Literature and Gospel Teachings, published in 1930. He presented the latter as "a sort of supplement" to his Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels and supplied the Rabbinical parallels to the Gospels of which there were few in his Commentary (Montefiore, Rabbinie Literature and Gospel Teach~ (NY: KTAV Pub Hse, 1970), p xxxv; given as RL in following page references]. Montefiore was a prominent exponent of "Liberal Judaism" and this perspective is very evident in both the above works. In the Preface to The Synoptic Gospels he speaks of his point of view as follows: My book does not pretend to learning. If it were not for my special point of view, I should have no justification to write upon the Gospels at an.... lf it be asked: 'Why then do you venture to throw your work at the public?' I can only reply that the peculiar point of view to which I have alluded has, I hope, made my book of some interest and use to a few persons, both within and without my religious community ..•. This 'peculiar point of view' is that of a Liberal Jew who has not found his profound attachment to Liberal Judaism inconsistent either with a high appreciation of the lives and teachings of many of the ancient Rabbis . . . or with a similar high appreciation of the character and teachings of Jesus .•. (Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, vol I, 2d ed (NY: KTAV Pub Hse, 1968), p ix). In a Note at the end of volume n of The Synoptic Gospels Montefiore refers again to his "peculiar point of view" and adds that he probably holds a higher view of the greatness and originality of the teaching of Jesus than is common among Liberal Jewish writers (P 670; vol 11--only--of Synoptic Gospels will appear as SG in following page references]. Montefiore was convinced that his approach enabled him to treat the classic sources of Judaism and Christianity as no one · before him had done. Tlms he believed that he could serve as a "bridge" between these two traditions. In The Synoptic Gospels Montefiore begins the section on the Sermon on the Mount by stating that the Sermon is not a summans to repentance, or a proclamation of the imminence of the Judgment and of the Kingdom. It seems to be intended for those who have already accepted the call and message of Jesus, and are ready for his most developed teaching. Moreover, it is not a sermon with which Jesus was likely to have started his career as a teacher, but rather one in which he summed it up (SG p 27).

Jewish Interpretations

117

In his subsequent discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, Montefiore departs from this initial non-eschatological estimate and reflects a position close to the "consistent eschatology" of Weiss and Schweitzer. In commenting on the Beatitudes, Montefiore says that Jesus doubtless believed that the Kingdom was coming very soon--during his lifetime or soon after his death. He saw hirnself as its herald, and it might be said that in a sense the Kingdom had already begun. Montefiore quotes Weiss with approval on his suggestion that the higher righteousness of Jesus was intended for men who were soon to appear before the judgment seat of God. The Sermon on the Mount is spoken from the point of view of inevitable crisis and the expected near end of the world (SG pp 35, 54). This eschatological outlook accounts for the fact that the Sermon contains no program for the improvement of this world and its institutions. The Sermon gives us no answer to our social questions, nor how to organize the society of later ages. It has no thought of a human race who are to live upon the

earth for centuries upon centuries, but it is spoken to a small band of men who are to turn their backs upon earthly matters, and to expect and prepare for a new 'heavenly' order.... To the question, 'How are we best to order the life of mankind?', we receive no answer; what is answered is the question which an earnest and tender conscience must always put to itself: 'What nrust I do to be saved?' [SG p 54]. Commenting on Jesus' teaching on nonresistance (Matt. 5:38-42), Montefiore emphasizes the individualistic vs. the social aspects of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was not thinking about public justice, the order of civic communities, the organization of states, but only how the members of his religious brotherhood should act towards each other and towards those outside their ranks. Public justice was outside his purview. There was no need for such concern because the old order was approaching a catastrophic end. Nonresistance is not to be taken literally and does not apply to the work of the police or defensive war. In these spheres, Montefiore thinks, the injunction is wholly inapplicable. and false. "Jesus did not bother his head about the state." He is not thinking of the. state, but only of the individual. Jesus is thinking about private injuries, not of public justice or public wrong-doing. His concern is not so much about the wrong-doing as it affects the wrong-doer, but as to what is the sufferer's right attitude concerning it (SG pp 70-5, RL p 52). Montefiore's views on Jesus' teaching about divorce and oaths are noteworthy. Jesus' extreme attitude toward divorce is untenable and objectionable. However, his implied attack upon the inferiority of women in Oriental society, and upon the unjust power of divorce given to men, was of the highest importance and value (SG p 67). As for oaths, Montefiore believes that Jesus forbad all oaths of every kind and on every occasion for the disciples and members of

118

History of Interpretation

the coming Kingdom. He agrees with the Quaker interpretation on oaths and feels that they have been the true interpreters. Jesus, however, goes beyond the Rabbis because there is no ordinance or injunction in Rabbinical literature never to swear or take an oath (SG p 68, RL p 50). One of Montefiore's major concerns, of course, is the relationship of the Sermon on the Mount to the Old Testament and to Rabbinie literature. One parallel between the Sermon and the Old Testament relates to Jesus on the "mountain." Montefiore feels that this recalls Moses on Sinai and that Matthew wants to contrast the two Laws: the one old, imperfect and transitory; the other new, perfect and definitive. The Law of Jesus fulfills the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets (SG p 29). In Matt. 5:17-20 there are three instances of fulfillment of the same character. n: consists in entirely prohibiting what had previously been restricted only, and in requiring to be observed absolutely and universally that which previous legislation had enjoined to be observed only within limits. Montefiore concludes, however, that in spite of the "antitheses" in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had no deliberate intention of teaching a new religion or a new "righteousness" (SG pp 50, 55). Montefiore points out that it is very common in books on Christian theology to speak of the imperfect or transitional or preparatory morality and religion of the Old Testament as compared with the perfect, permanent, or absolute morality and religion of the Gospel and the Sermon on the Mount. But Judaism has developed on its own lines so that some of the "imperfections" in the Old Testament are corrected in later literature, quite independently of the Gospels. Many Christians would regard such passages as Matt. 5:28, 6:4, or 7:5 as splendid additions to, or perfections of, the Old Testament. However, to many Jews they seem less so because they are already familiar to them in their own tradition (SG pp 1267). On the whole, Montefiore takes a very positive and congenial attitude toward the Sermon on the Mount. However, in commenting on Matt. 6:1-4 where Jesus refers to the hypocrisy practiced in the synagogues, Montefiore writes: "It is this constant suggestion of moral and religious inferiority in Judaism as such, which, be it remembered, is a word that connotes, not a dead religion of 1900 years ago, but a living religion of today--it is this which no doubt makes us sometimes throw stones and exaggerate in turn" (SG p 95). Referring to other specific passages in the Sermon on the Mount, Montefiore says: As regards the moral and religious teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, the liberal Jew can by no means subscribe to every word of it, or regard it as perfect and permanent. Passages such as 5:22 and 7:14 are objectionable; they are as 'imperfect and transitional' as many a passage in the Old Testament. Passages such as 5:20, 34, 38-42, need qualifi-

119

Jewish Interpretations

cation and restriction. The theology of a passage such as 7:7 is open to considerable question. We must bring our critical judgment to bear upon the Sermon on the Mount as we must bring it to bear upon the Pentateuch. In some respects we have advanced beyond both [SG p 127). In comparing the Sermon on the Mount with Rabbinie teaching, Montefiore states that on the whole the latter is more sober and less enthusiastic than the teaching of the former. But the Rabbis considered consequences more than Jesus. They were more practical and had more common sense, if less genius. Comparing the religion of the Rabbis to that of the Beatitudes, Montefiore says that the Rabbinie teaching is more camprehenaive but also somewhat less concentrated, intense and passionate (SG p 74, RL p 2). Montefiore refers to several passages in the Sermon which are "purely original" since they do not harmonize with, or are not easily paralleled by, Rabbinie sources. They are mainl.y: 5:10-12, 32, 38-48, 6:6, 18, 33. "But though not very numerous, they are of immense importance and significance, and mostly of a high greatness and nobility" (SG p 127) [for reference to uniqueness of 5:48 see RL p 110). As we have seen, Montefiore has a high regard for the Sermon on the Mount, and he views it as a "meeting-ground" for Jew and Christian. One reason for this possibility is the absence of the Christological element in the Sermon. Montefiore finds that it contains no article of faith concerning the person of its giver; nothing about his Messiahship; no word about his divinity. Consequently, one can live in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, and yet, like every Jew from Jesus' day to this, need not "acknowledge any Man as our religious 'Lord'." Furthermore, the Sermon on the Mount makes a rapprochement between Jew and Christian possible because it contains nothing which is essentially antagonistic to Judaism. There are abundant parallels in Rabbinie literature for most of its utterances. "The highest spirit of the Old Law is in harmony with the purest statement of the New" (SG pp 125, 126). Montefiore expresses his overall view and appreciation of the Sermon on the Mount as follows: And yet it may perhaps be urged that the originality and greatness of the Sermon does not lie in any particular part of it. They lie in the whole. How much of it may go back to Jesus must be always uncertain. That the Sermon has grown from smaller groups and separate sayings is most probable. But it remains for all time a religious doctnnent of great nobility, significance, and power [SG p 127). GERALD FRIEDLANDER With Gerald Friedlander we confront a man of different temperament from Montefiore. While Montefiore was conciliatory in his evaluation of the Sermon on the Mount, Friedlander is polemical and apologetic. Indeed, he takes particular issue with the views of

120

History of Interpretation

Montefiore expressed in The Synoptic Gospels. In 1911 he published The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount [NY: KTAV Pub Hse, 1969; page references are to this work], which was intended, in the first place, as a contribution to comparative theology. He attempts to describe the relationship between Christianity and Judaism by means of comparison and contrast. To limit the scope of his inquiry he confines hirnself to the Sermon on the Mount. The ~eaching of the Sermon must be compared not only with the Old Testament and its Rabbinie glosses preserved in the Mishna, Tosephta, Gemara, Midrashim, and Targumin, but also with Jewish Hellenie literature, which includes the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, Philo, and the Apocalyptic writings. Friedlander regards his attempt to read a few chapters of the New Testament in the light of contemporary Jewish thought as a novel venture. He says that he has endeavored to analyze the Sermon and to trace its sources, so far as they are discoverable (pp xxxvii-xxxviii). The tone of Friedlander's work is polemical, and this has led T. W. Manson to remark: "Friedlander's main thesis is that any good in the Sermon on the Mount can be paralleled from Jewish sources, and that nothing that cannot be paralleled from Jewish sources is any good" [Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (NY: Scribner's, 1960), p 57]. Let us consider a few of Friedlander's statements which may give credence to Manson's evaluation. Friedlander acknowledges the lofty tone of the Beatitudes but then adds that we should not forget that all that they teach can be found in Isaiah and the Psalms. "Israel finds nothing new here. The Jew rejoices to think that such fine teaching is common to Judaism and Christianity. " Concerning Jesus' teaching on divorce, Friedlander says that Judaism has again nothing to learn from this negative teaching. Regarding almsgiving, Friedlander writes: "The Sermon on the Mount does well to impress on the generaus the need of secrecy in their almsgiving, but it has nothing to offer which is not found in the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees." As for the Lord's Prayer, he says that it is merely an adaptation of nine verses of Ezekiel (Ezek. 36: 23-31). He adds: "This should finally settle the question as to the originality of the Lord's Prayer. It is taken, we have seen, from the Old Testament, and therefore can lay no claim whatsoever to originality." Friedlander at the conclusion of his study says that four-fifths of the Sermon on the Mount is exclusively Jewish. He also declares that "In our opinion this Pharisaic teaching is infinitely superior to that of the Gospel" (pp 23, 59, 107, 165, 266, 214). Friedlander is more outspoken than Montefiore on the "unfair treatment of the Pharisees" in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Gospels in general. Commenting on Matt. 5:20, Friedlander writes: "Here the Gospel denies the possibility of the Pharisees or Scribes being able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Their righteousness is sin, only the new and higher righteousness of Jesus will enable his disciples to enter into the coming Kingdom" (p 35). Christian writers generally know little about the Jewish literature, and they are naturally influenced by the New Testament picture of

Jewish Interpretations

121

the Pharisee. Friedlander states that the New Testament view is one-sided, and it is neither charitable nor just. "The New Testament has drawn a prejudiced, untrue, and unfair picture of the Pharisees" (p 36). In a lengthy discussion of Matt. 6:19-34, Friedlander discerns an "unJewish asceticism." Over against Jesus 1 renunciation of "mammon" and the view that wealth is tainted, the Jewish Scriptures declare that gold and silver belong to God (Hag. 2:8). In Judaism there was no desire to renounce money, or to refuse to utilize it in a good and proper manner. At this point Judaism rejects the Gospel teaching. Wealth is one of Christianity 1 s many deadly sins. But this has no parallel in Judaism. "Christianity is not of the world-Judaism is of the world. . . . Judaism is not 1a religion, 1 it is life" (pp 180-1). This same spirit of asceticism and renunciation is reflected in Jesus 1 teaching about having no care or anxiety. The absolute faith in Providence, unaccompanied by any effort on man 1 s part, in 6:33, is not a Jewish doctrine because man is placed on earth to labor (Cf. Gen. 3:19 and 2:15). "There is nothing in the Psalms or any other book of the Old Testament which teaches us to have no care, but we are reminded to trust in God alone, for He is mighty to save" (p 196). Another cleavage between Judaism and the Sermon on the Mount relates to Jesus 1 teaching about nonresistance in 5:38-42. Friedlander says that the spirit of abnegation and self-denial that sacrifices individuality and personal freedom is alien to Jewish teaching. There are times when a Jew can and should overcome evil by good, but justice cannot be forgotten in an attempt to fulfill the divine law of love. In his private life man must renounce revenge, but in public life a different law obtains. Justice requires that wrong should be resisted. Jt must be emphasized that Judaism forbids the exercise of revenge. "Judaism, unlike Christianity (as taught in the Sermon on the Mount), recognizes the duty of fighting against evil. It repudiates the 1 higher and newer 1 law, 1 resist not evil 111 (pp 67 -8). Friedlander is far more reluctant and negative in his evaluation of the "unique" parts of the Sermon on the Mount than is Montefiore. Among Jesus 1 original teachings are: nonresistance, "asceticism," and having no care for worldly things. In his section on Jesus 1 teaching about almsgiving, Friedlander says: "lf Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said anything new, it was that the old Jewish public worship should cease and be replaced by private devotions in one 1 s inner chamber" (p 111). Friedlander rejects Montefiore 1 s contention that the Sermon on the Mount could be the ideal meeting-ground and bond of union between Jew and Christian. Judaism prefers to adhere to the old paths instead of embracing the new Law of the Gospel. Gentiles

122

History of Interpretation

have been unwilling to accept the "heavy yoke" of God' s Kingdom (i. e., the Torah). Jnstead they have taken up the "easy yoke" of the Gospel. But no Jew could possibly admit the claims of Jesus which involve his right to abrogate the Divine Law, his power to forgive sins, the efficacy of his vicarious atonement, and his ability to reveal God the Father of man to whomsoever he will. Underlying these claims is the belief in his divinity and unique divine sonship. Consequently, the most positive thing that Friedlander can say about Jesus and the Gospels and Christianity is that they have been of the greatest benefit to non-Jewish people in the same way that Mohammed, the Koran, and Islam have been. . As for the Sermon on the Mount, "This is not to condemn the teilehing of the Sermon. It has its part to play in the religious training of the world" (pp 264-5). 35

AFTERWORD

The foregoing survey of the history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount reveals many approaches and attempted solutions to its critical and ethical problems. While the critical and historical questions are of special interest to New Testament scholarship, the problern of the Sermon's application and contemporary relevance strikes a more universal note. What is the Sermon on the Mount's "answer" to such basic ethical questions as: What ought I to do and be? Around what center of value should I orient my life? In what sense, if any, can the "individualistic" demands of the Sermon on the Mount be applicable to the interrelationships between ethnic, racial, economic, religious, and national communities? Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the question of the Sermon on the Mount always comes back to keeping the commandment and not evading it. How right he was! After one has explored the critical issues with erudition and exactitude, and after one has set the Sermon on the Mount in its "correct" theological perspective, the question of the Sermon's relevance still confronts us. Like a "hound of heaven" it tracks us down the days and years and will not let us evade or escape its radical demands. For the Christian community the Sermon on the Mount is authoritative because it is a part of the New Testament. Its position is further enhanced because it comes from the lips of Jesus. Furthermore, behind the words is the person of Jesus the Christ. The quality of life set forth in the Sermon on the Mount is embodied in the life style of Jesus. He who announced the advent of the Kingdom of God exemplified the "ethics of the Kingdom." In the classical Christian creeds and in the thought of the most eminent Christian theologians, there has been a tendency to subordinate the "Jesus of history" to the "Christ of faith." Or to put it another way, the "word of the cross" has overshadowed Jesus' words about discipleship and the qualities needful for citizenship in the Kingdom. There is a gospel song that says of Jesus:

Afterword

123

"He the great example is and pattern for me." That is a partial Christology, but it points to a dimension too orten neglected and evaded. According to each of the Gospels, Jesus' initial word to his disciples was, "Follow me." This call to discipleship is addressed to each Christian. and it is in the Sermon on the Mount that one finds guidelines and directives for discipleship. The Christian life is not only a gift of grace, grounded in the cross and resurrection of Christ, but a summons to follow him. Discipleship involves a pattern of living described in the Beatitudes--meekness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking. It includes integrity and truthfulness so that one's "yes is yes" and "no, no." One is called upon to endure evil and suffering rather than to inflict them upon others. There must be a simplicity and singleness of purpose centered in God's Kingdom rather than in mammonism. The Sermon on the Mount's radical demands cannot be evaded by understanding them as a summons to repentance and as a preparation for the word of grace. They are not an interim ethic given in a time of imminent crisis, but now no Ionger relevant. Nor dare we assign their application and relevance to the future kingdom which will be realized after the Second Advent. Rather, the Sermon on the Mount has a contemporary relevance in that it presents us with goals toward which we are constrained to move and with standards of judgment by which every decision and action must be evaluated. Thus we are called upon to make the attempt to "follow Jesus"--to do what he commands. This is a vital dimension of Christian discipleship. But all our efforts, no matter how inspired and inspiring, will fall short of the ideal. The "sin which so easily besets us" will find us not doing the good we want and doing the evil we do not want. Jesus' towering demand, "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect," will remain for us an "impossible possibility" as long as we participate in human existence. Sheer human will and effort will experience frustration when confronted with the Sermon on the Mount' s commands. The lofty ethic of the Kingdom which Jesus proclaimed from the mount and his exemplary life will continue to captivate and inspire us. But if he is only a master teacher and the great example, he becomes our despair rather than our hope because we cannot measure up to him. But through his death and resurrection God's grace is mediated to us. Forgiveness, acceptance, and love are extended to us so that discipleship is an act of responsive obedience to the one who is model and example but also savior and lord. Christian discipleship implies our attempt to "do" the Sermon on the Mount, but our doing is also a gift of grace. The Pauline paradox of "I, yet not I, but the grace of God" persists in reference to the Sermon on the Mount. Throughout the history of Christian doctrine the paradoxical tension between synergism and grace

124

History of Interpretation

has never been resolved. The Sermon on the Mount is not a new law which we must keep to gain salvation. But neither dare we ignore and neglect its demands since we are saved by "grace alone." It is along this continuum that we must take our place with the realization that the paradox will always remain. The Christian community continues to be inspired and challenged by those who see in the Sermon on the Mount a pattern for living. There have always been those who believed that the teachings of Jesus must lead to a life of costly witness and that "following Jesus" implied "entering the narrow gate" and taking the "hard way" which "leads to life." For some this has meant a commitment to simple living, a rejection of oaths, and a conscientious attempt to be nonresistant. Without these witnesses the church would be greatly impoverished. For they continue to act as light and salt and leaven in a church and in a world which too easily embrace mammonism, war, racism, classism, so that the tension between Christ and culture is relaxed and they tend to become indistinguishable. One of the most difficult problems relating to the Sermon on the Mount concerns its .relevance as a social ethic. There is widespread agreement that the commands of the Sermon have an individualistic or person to person reference. How can social groups exist without resisting evil and exercising judgment? How are they to "turn the other cheek" and "go the second mile?" How is it possible for them to take no thought and to reflect no anxiety about tomorrow? Such hard realities caused Luther to propose his theory of the "two kingdoms." Likewise it led the Anabaptists to the conviction that a "true Christian disciple" could not participate in statecraft and the civil order. Reinhold Niebuhr, perhaps more profoundly and convincingly than anyone else, argued that the moral options open to individuals are usually impossible for social groups to realize. Nation states, for example, cannot exist in a "fallen world" by following literally the Sermon on the Mount because they are involved with the competing and sometimes dichotomaus claims of love and justice. How then can we view the contemporary relevance of the Sermon on the Mount? The Sermon's teachings will lead some to take the way of radical discipleship without regard for social and political implications. Their witness will constantly remind us of the temptation to make our peace with the mores of a secular culture, to compromise our convictions prematurely, to seek our own advantage first rather than the Kingdom of God. The "Christ against culture" position has been a stimulus for renewal in Christian history and must continue to be so. But there are other Christians who will become deeply involved in the arenas of politics and economics where radical discipleship becomes an "impossible possibility." But the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are still relevant. On the justice-injustice continuum

Afterword

125

there are gradations and degrees. The Christian whose decisionmaking and activity are informed by the Sermon on the Mount will ever seek to realize the highest levels of justice and "love" in any given situation. While the choices are never black and white-wholly good vs. wholly evil--nevertheless, the "shade of grey" is crucial. The Christian's task is to seek to move social structures toward more humaneness, more responsiveness to the common good. In a word, his goal is to renew and transform our political, economic, and social communities so that they will increasingly reflect and conform to the Kingdom. Schweifzer called the Sermon on the Mount an interim ethic and he maintained that Jesus' whole life and ministry was conditioned by eschatology. While most interpreterB reject his extreme conclusions, few would deny that the Sermon has an eschatological reference. It is an "interim ethic" in that it is for those who live in "the time between the times." Our noblest moral efforts will not be sufficient to "build the Kingdom." In the face of the Sermon on the Mount' s radical demands, we will experience frustration and failure. It is the gift of hope which makes the effort possible. Hope assures us that the Kingdom in which we participate and whose signs we behold, however dimly, will one day be realized. To seek first the Kingdom and to be obedient to its commands is an act of hope--that the time is coming when the kingdom of the world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign for ever and everl

Part II BIB LIOGRAPHY FOREWORD An extraordinarily satisfying and meaningful hobby of Dr. W. Harold Row is set forth in the following pages.

It is seldom that

one's hobby or major extra-professional interest is so central to one's life task.

Yet in the case of Harold Row there can be no

doubt that his interest over many decades in the Sermon on the Mount deepened his faith for the many tasks that he performed as Executive Director of the Brethren Service Committee, which later became the Brethren Service Commission. Harold, as he was known to thousands of his warm friends and admirers, left no stones unturned in his effort to find various versians of the Sermon on the Mount, and annotations, commentary and sermons relating thereto.

Thus the Sermon on the Mount was to him

not only an inspired literature but a literature of ever-widening meaning and of deepening insights. His collections included discoveries in many libraries, churches, and repositories of religious literature in many countries, from the United States to the Soviet Union. Many of us recall with deep satisfaction the sermons that he hirnself preached on the Sermon on the Mount, in which the inspiration and fruit of his study were invariably reflected. The following pages are worth thoughtful study both for their spiritual value and as clues to Harold's devotion to a major theme of undying interest. Andrew W. Cordier President Emeritus Columbia University

127

SERMON ON THE MOUNT TEXTS [Bible. New Testament.]* English. Selections. 1899. The Sermon on the Mount and other extracts from the New Testament; a verbatim translation from the Greek, with notes on the mystical or arcane sense by J. M. Pryse. New York: E. B. Page, 1899. English. Selections. Wyclüfe. 1902 The Sermon on the Mount and other passages from Wyclü's translation of the Bible. Boston: Directors of the Old South Work, 1902. Gospels. English. Selections. Authorized. 1955. The Sermon on the Mount and other sayings of Jesus. Mount Vernon, N. Y.: Peter Pauper Press, 1955. Decorated by Valenti Angelo. Matthew I-VII. Mbundu of Benguella. 1889. Mateo la Marko. Matthew, eh. I- VII and Mark, translated by W. M. Stover. Benguella: West Central African Mission, 1889. Nupe. 1860. The first seven chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in Nupe. Translated by the Rev. Samuel Crowther. London: B. and F. B. S., 1860. Matthew IV, 23-VIII, 1. English. 1861. The Sermon on the Mount. llluminated by W. and G. Hudsley. lllus. by Charles Rolt. Chromolithographed by W. R. Timms. London: 1861.

*As in the classüicatory hierarchy of, for example, a library catalog card, the following entries will all be understood to begin with the elements "Bible. New Testament. " 128

Texts

129

English. Authorized. 1955. The Sermon on the Mount. Introduction by Norman Vincent Peale. Wood engravings by John De Pol. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1955. Matthew V. Algonkin. 1873. [Cuoq, Jean Andre] Chrestomathie algonquine. 1873.

Paris:

Maisonneuve et Cie,

English. The beginning of the New Testament translated by William Tyndale, 1525; facsimile of the unique fragment of the uncompleted Cologne edition; with an introduction by Alfred W. Pollard. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Contains chapter V of Matthew in the versions of Tyndale, MDXXXV, the Great Bible, MDXXXIX, the Geneva Bible, MDLX, the Bishops Bible, MDLXXIT, the Jesuit version, Rheims, MDLXXXII, the Authorized version, MDCXI. 1822. Sermon and catechism for children. Carey. York: 1822.

Printed by J.

1905. The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. Harting, Petersfield, Hampshire: Pear Tree Press, 1905. 200 copies printed by James Guthrie. Written out by Percy J. Smith. Drawings by James Guthrie. 1938. Saint Matthew; chapter five of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Chepstow, Eng.: Tinturn Press, 1938. Matthew V, 1-11. Algonquin. 1873. Fragments de chrestomathie de la.langue algonquine. Les huit beatitudes, Saint Mathieu, eh. V. Paris: 1873. English. 1868. The Beatitudes of Our Lord, with parallel passages. Six illuminations. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1868. 1905. The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. Written out by Percy J. Smith. Drawings by James Guthrie. Harting, Petersfield: Pear Tree Press, 1905.

130

Bibliography

Authorized. 1951. The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. Written out by Betty Althea Bunn, and printed in black and colour, as a souvenir of the Festival of Britain. Bognor Regis, Sussex: Mermaid Press, 1951. 1971. The Beatitudes. Nine cards illuminated in gold and colours. London: S. P. C. K., 1871.

Matthew V-VII. Polyglot. 1819. Die Bergpredigt unsers Herrn und Heilandes Jesus Christus. In deutscher, englischer und französischer Sprache. Pyrmont: Uslar, 1819. 1860. Our Blessed Lord's Sermon on the Mount in English, in TamiJ.. in Malayalam, in Kanarese, and in Telugu; in the Anglo-Indian character, · with a vocabulary, minute grammatical praxis and inflexional tables; by the Rev. G. U. Pope. Madras: Gantz Brothers, 1860. Griental texts in parallel columns with two columns to a page; English text at foot of the page.

American Indian sign language. 1880. The Sermon on the Mount in the Indian sign-talk. Fort Smith, Ark. : 1890. • Assamese. 1837. on the Mount in Asamese.

---,S~e-rmon

lllus.

1837.

Basque. 1831. Sermon sur la montagne, en grec et en basque, precede du paradigme de la conjugaison basque, par m. Fleury de Lecluse. Toulouse: Vieusseux, 1831. Bemba. 1906. Fyebo fya .kwa Ye su Klistu pa Lupili. Matthew V. I VI. , and VII. Mu Ch1-Bemba. London: B. and F. B. S., 906. Bengali. 1835. The Sermon on the Mount. 2d ed., enl., with extracts on relative duties, in English, and Bengali in the Roman character. Calcutta: 1835. Braille. 1854.. Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount.

Printed in embossed

Texts

131

(Matthew V-VII. ) characters for the use of the blind. Bristol: the Blind; London: Chapman and Hall, 1854. Canarese. 1869. The Sermon on the Mount. Mission Press, 1869.

3rd ed.

Asylum for

Mangalore: Basel

Danish. 1964. Jesu bjergpraediken; Mattaeus-evangeliet, kap. 5-7, K~enhavn: Scripta, 1964. o 225 copies printed plus 28 copies marked A-A. 1966. Bjergpraediken. Mattaeus-evangeliet, kapitlerne fern til syv. Efter aut. overs. af 1948. Vignetter af Harry W. Holm. Eiler Eilentsers Bogtrykkeri, 1966. Dutch. 1945. De Bergrede. 's-Gravenhage:

E. Wattez, 1945.

1968. De bergrede. Naschrift van W. K. Grossouw. Haag: Bert Bakker jDaamen, 1968.

Den

English. 1783. The New-England Psalter; or Psalms of David. With the Proverbs of Solomon, and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Being a proper introduction for the training up children in the reading of the Holy Scriptures. Boston: T. and J. Fleet, 1783, A number of subsequent editions by various printers were published. Authorized. 1845. The Sermon on the Mount; Gospel of St. Matthew chapters V., VI., VII. llluminated by Owen Jones. London: Longman, 1845. 1854. The Sermon on the Mount; Gospel of St. Matthew. llluminated by F. Lepelle de Boi Gallais. London: 1854. 1861. The Sermon on the Mount. llluminated by Samuel Stanesby. London: John Field, 1861.

132

Bibliography

(Matthew V-VII.

English.)

1861. The Sermon on the Mount. llluminated by Ward G. Audsley. lllustrated by C. Rolt. London: Day and Son, 1861. 1885. The inaugural address of the Kingdom of Heaven: being a translation, by C,. B. Seymour, of the Sermon on the Mount, with a running comment and notes. Louisville, Ky.: J. P. Morton, 1885. 1885. The Sermon on the Mount. lllus. Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ripon. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1885. Authorized. 1886. The Sermon on the Mount. Boston:

Roberts Brothers,

1886. Ornately illustrated. 1893. The Sermon on the Mount in Burnz' s pronouncing print. New York: Burnz and Co., 1893. The object of this print is to present the pronunciation of English words as clearly and exactly as possible, without change of spelling. "Printed especially for Sunday schools and missions, and for teaching illiterates and foreigners." Miles. 1899. The Teaching of Jesus today. The Sermon on the Mount rendered from the Greek into simpler English by Eustace H. Miles. London: Grant Richards, 1899. Authorized. 1900. The Sermon on the Mount. Wausau, Wis. : Philosopher Press, 1900. Made into this book by Helen Bruneau Van Vechten, with decorative embellishment after the designs of Agnes Bassett. 1908. The Sermon on the Mount, from the translation authorized by King James, A.D. 1611; together with the Revised

Texts (Matthew V-VII.

133

English. )

version of A.D. 1901.

New York:

Duffield, 1908.

Authorized. 1909. The Sermon on the Mount, Introduction by Rev. J, Edgar Park. Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1909" Meditations by Rev. Park precede text, 1911. The Sermon on the Mount. Designed, written out, and illuminated by Alberto Sangorski, including a miniature taken from the painting "The light of the world" by Holman Hunt. Printed on double leaves folded in Chinese style; title and text within illuminated borders. London: Chatto and Windus, 1911.

Authorized. 1913. The Sermon on the Mount. Portland, Me.: T. B. Mosher, 1913. 900 copies published on Kelmscott handmade paper and 50 copies on Japan vellum. 1917. The Sermon on the Mount. San Francisco: J. H. Nash, 1917. Text within gold-lined ornamental border. 200 copies printed. Decorations by Roy F. Coyle. 1921. The Sermon on the Mount. Printed for the Book Club of California by J. H. Nash. San Francisco: 1921. Text in red, blue, and black, within green double line border. 300 copies printed.

Authorized. 1924. The Sermon on the Mount. San Francisco: Grabhorn Press, 1924. Colored illustrations. 190 copies printed. Designs by Stafford Duncan. 1926. The Sermon on the Mount as told by St. Matthew. San Francisco: J. H. Nash, 1926. Text in double columns within colored ornamental borders. Decoration and initials by William N. Wilke. Unbound, in green paper folder.

134

Bibliography

(Matthew V-Vll.

English. )

1927. Christ' s Sermon on the Mount. Birmingham, Eng. : Birmingham School of Printing, 1927. Authorized. 1930. The Sermon on the Mount, from the Gospel of St. Matthew. Flancham, Bognor Regis, Sussex: Pear Tree Press, 1930. 200 copies printed. 1930. The Sermon on the Mount: the simple words of Jesus Christ as told by his disciple, St. Matthew. Printed for Edward L. and Estelle Doheny by J. H. Nash. San Francisco: 1930. Authorized. 1934? The Sermon on the Mount: the simple words of Jesus Christ as told by his disciple, St. Matthew. Printed for Edward L. and Estelle Doheny by John Henry Nash. San Francisco, 1934? 1935. The Sermon on the Mount; being the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew in the King James version of the Holy Bible. New York: Golden Cross Press, 1935. 110 copies of this edition of the Sermon on the Mount have been designed and band illuminated by Valenti Angelo and printed by Edmund R. Thompson at Hawthorn House, Windham, Connecticut, December, 1935. 1935. The Sermon on the Mount. Drawings by Horace J. Knowles. London: Ivor Nieholsan and Watson, 1935. 1935. The Sermon on the Mount; King James' version, the Gospel according toSt. Matthew. Restatement as given from the heavens for life guidance to Pallas Parma. San Francisco: Grabhorn Press, 1935. 100 copies printed. The Sermon on the Mount.

1937. Oxford:

B. Blackwell, 1937.

Texts

135

(Matthew V-VII.

English.)

Printed on double leaves folded in Chinese style; title and text within illuminated borders; initials. Designed, written out, and illuminated by Alberto Sangorski; includes a miniature taken from the painting "The light of the world" by Holman Hunt. 1938. The Sermon on the Mount, from the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Privately printed for the Monastery Hill Bindery. Chicago: 1938. 2000 copies printed. 1940. The Sermon on the Mount, by Our as told by St. Matthew. Eugene, Ore.: gon, John Henry Nash Fine Arts Press, Designed by John Henry Nash. In within line borders.

Lord Jesus Christ University of Ore1940. double columns;

1942. The Sermon on the Mount from the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Printed for Holiday House of New York by the Monastery Hili Press. Chicago: 1942. 1943. The Sermon on the Mount, chapters V, VI, and VII of the Gospel of Matthew from the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. Chicago: Basic Books, 1943.

ed.

1946. The Sermon on the Mount. Everett Shinn illustrated Philadelphia, Toronto: John C. Winston, 1946.

1950. The Sermon on the Mount, being the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew in the King James version of the Holy Bible. Bronxville, N. Y.: Press of Valenti Angelo, 1950. 50 copies, designed, printed and illuminated by Valenti Angelo. 1952. Excerpts from Christ' s Sermon on the Mount according to the Gospel of St. Matthew. Lexington, Va.: C. Harold Lauck, 1952.

136 (Matthew V-VII.

Bibliography English. )

The Sermon on the Mount. Society, 1959.

1959. New York:

American Bible

1968. The Sermon on the Mount,. being the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew in the King James version of the Holy Bible. Chicago: Monastery Hill Bindery, 1968. Design, typography, and production by Norman W. Forgue. Text within blue and white borders. 1972. The Sermon on the Mount. ciety in Australia, 1972.

Port Moresby:

Bible So-

. . Paraphrases. 1724. ---A.---paraphrase upon Our Saviour's Sermon on the Mount. London: J. Knapton, 1724. 1855. Christ's Sermon on the Mount in verse; with analytical divisions and explanatory notes. By R. A. London: Wertheim and Macintosh, 1855. • Jobson. 1864. A metrical versio-n-o"'""'f..-t"""h-e-Sermon on the Mount. By D. Wemyss Jobson. Melbourne: H. T. Dwight, 1864. Kimball. 1871. The Sermon on the Mount translated into English verse. 2nd ed. New York: A. D. F. Randolph, 1871. Findlay. 1920. The Sermon on the Mount, with a paraphrase. Alexander Findlay. London: J. A. Sharp, 1920.

By J.

Scher. 1954. The Master-speech: the Sermon on the Mount; a nonsectarian interpretation of Matthew 5-7, with questions and answers for study. New York: Exposition Press, 1954. Jordan. 1964. Practical religion or the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistle of James in the Koinonia "Cotton Patch" version.

Texts

137

(Matthew V-VII.

English. )

Americus, Ga.:

Koinonia Farm, 1964.

Phonetic. 1904. Krist's Sermun on the Mount together with The prodig'l, a poem, speld az spök'n bi Judson Jönz. Klevland, Minesota: J. Jönz, 1904. Shorthand. 1846. The Sermon on the Mount; Matthew, eh. 5, 6, 7. In phonography, written in an easy style for learners. London: Isaac Pitman; Bath: Phonetic Institution, 1846. 1848. Christ's Sermon on the Mount in phonogra hy. Prepared by S. P. drews and A. F. Boyle. New York: Andrews and Boyle, 1848. 1866. The Sermon on the Mount. Lithographed in the corresponding style of phonography, by James Butterworth. London: F. Pitman, 1866. 1866. The Sermon on the Mount. Lithographed in the reporting style of phonography, by James Butterworth. London: F. Pitman, 1866.

French. 1822. Le Sermon de Notre Seigneur J~sus Christ sur la Montagne, extrait de l'Evangile selon Saint-Matthieu, chapitres IV, V, VI et VII. Paris: 1822. 1940. LeSermon sur la montagne. des Amis (Qiakers), 1940. 1962. Le Sermon sur la montagne.

Paris:

Societe religieuse

G. L. M., 1962.

(Guernsey}. 1884. The Sermon on the Mount and the Parahle of the Sower, translated into the Franco-Norman dialect of Guernsey from the French of Le Maistre de Sacy by George M~tivier, to which is added a Sark version of the Parahle of the Sower. Edited, with parallel French and English versions, by John Linwood Pitts. Guernsey: Guille-Alles Library, 1884.

138

Bibliography

(Matthew V-VII. ) Gä. 1826. Jesu Biergpradiken, oversat i det accraiske Sprog. Med nogle Tillaeg af Luthe rs Lille Catechismus. Ki~enhavn: Forlagt i det Kongelige Vaisenlmses Bogtrgkkeri, 1826. Translated by P. W. Wrisberg.

Gahuku. 1972. Gosohaq oko moloko ituni gapo. ciety of Australia, 1972.

Canberra:

Gari. 1972. Nina turupatu a Iesu ta na vungavunga. Bible Society in Australia, 1972.

Bible So-

Canberra:

• German. Bolten. 1768. --.D~i,_e· Bergpredigt in einer neuen Ober-setzung, von Johann A. Bolten. Hamburg: 1768. Luther. 1887. Die Bergpredigt unseres Herrn und Heilandes Jesu Christi. Salzburg: Dieter. geb. m. Goldschnitt, 1887. 19-? Die Bergpredigt Jesus Christi.

Leipzig:

Insel-Verlag,

19-?

Written by Graily Hewitt.

300 copies printed.

Luther. 1911. Die Bergpredigt Jesu Christi in der Lutherschen Übersetzung. Leipzig: B. Behrs Verlag, 1911. 1914. Die Bergpredigt. lllustriert von Eugen Burnand. Reproduktionen des Original-Kartons zu den Glasmalereien für die Kirche zu Herzogenbuchsee (Schweiz). Vorwort von Lasch. Basel: Ernst Finckh Verlag, 1914. • • 1919. --.D~i,_e· Bergpredigt delitzsch. Vuittemberg: Grandusaehe Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1919. 225 copies printed.

Die Bergpredigt. 1921.

1921. Offenbach am Main:

1522; Berlin:

Ernst Engel,

Texts

139

(Matthew V-VII.

Ger man. )

Printed on vellum; rubricated by hand. Unbound, unstitched; in cloth folder. Initials and ornaments drawn and cut by Hans Schreiber. 1922. Die Bergpredigt. Evangelium Matthlti, 5-7. Frankfort am Main: Hausdruckerei der Scriftgiesserei D. Stempel, 1922. 300 copies printed. Initials and ornaments drawn and cut by Hans Schreiber.

Müller. 1936. Deutsche Gottesworte; aus der Bergpredigt verdeutscht von Ludwig Müller. 3. und 4. unveränderte Aufl. Weimer 1 Thüringen: Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1936. 1951. Die Bergpredigt. Mit Holzschnitten von Rudolf Nehmer. Berlin: Evangelische Verlag-anstalt, 1951. 1952.

Auf den Felsen gebaut.

Die Bergpredigt, Matth. 5-7. Hrsg. von der Pressestelle der Evangelisch Lutherischen Kirche in Thüringen. Jena: Wartburg Verlag, 1952. 1955. Die Bergpredigt Jesu Christi. Ernst-Engel-Presse, 1955.

Die Bergpredigt.

1956 Wurzburg:

Stuttgart-Weil im Dorf:

Noack, 1956.

Paraphrases. 1771. Die Bergpredigt Jesu, nach einer freien Übersetzung in Versen. Zurich: Orell, 1771. Die Bergpredigt unsers Herrn und Heilandes Jesu Christi. In Versen. Strassburg: Heitz, n. d. Gothic and German. 1881. Ulfilas Aivaggeljo thairh Maththaiu K. V-VII. gebebenvon August Schäfer. Wildshut: 1881.

Heraus-

Gothic. 1924. Die gotische Bergpredigt, in Sievers, Eduard Wilhelm,

140

Bibliography

(Matthew V-VII. ) compiler and editor. Deutsche Sagversdichtungen des JX-XI Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: 1924, 164-73. Greek and English. 1834. First lines in Greek; or, the Sermon on the Mount, exhibited both in Greek and English characters: with an interlinear translation. By Thomas Foster Harham. London: J. Souter, 1934. Guarani. 1888. Edicion bi-lengual guarani y espafiol de El sermon de Jesu-Cristo en la montafia. Londres: Sociedad Biblica Brihinica e Estrangera, 1888. Gujarati. 1854. Sermon on the Mount with comments.

Bombay:

1854.

Hindustani. 1834. The Sermon on the Mount. 2d ed. , enl. , with extracts on relative duties, in English, and Hindustani in the Roman character. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1834. Hiri Motu. 1972. Iesu ia haroro ororo dekenai. in Australia, 1972.

Canberra:

Bible Society

Hungarian. 1948. Hegyi Beszed, mely irva talahat6 Mate evangyelioma. 5. 6. es 7. resze"ben. Ford. Karoli Gäsp:ir. Budapest: Ref. Trakbitus Vifil, 1948. Judaeo-Spanish. n. d. ;w.,~ , ·nn •!) 'n no title page ; no date. .

---c...,,,...l..;l- •jJ

Karen.

iJ, , v1 iT

...

1857 •

..;;;;T..;;;;h;.;;,e,_..;.:..Se';'r;;.m'--o..;;;;n'--on~t;.h-e~M-ou-i'--n_t'• ......-'B"-'g.._h_a.,....i___Ka--,;r-:i'-en.

by Francis Mason. 1957.

Maulmain:

Translated American Mission Press,

Kongo. Richards. 1891. Nlongolo kua Kikongo. 1891. Latin. 19 53. Sermo Domini in Monte. 100 copies printed.

Verona:

Officina Bodoni, 1953.

Texts

141

(Matthew V-Vll. ) Latin and French. 1953. Sermo Domini in Monte. Verona: 1953. 50 copies printed. Composee en caracteres Zeno de Giovanni Mardersteig. Vellum. Magi. 1972. Oro de obasa. Port Moresby: tralia, 1972. Motu. 1972. Iesu na ororo ai e haroro. ciety in Australia, 1972.

Bible Society in Aus-

Port Moresby:

Nunggubuyu. 1972. Naje sus waniyambini marlandhirringindirriy. Bible Society in Australia, 1972. Pidgin English. 1972. Jisas i autim tok antap long mounten. Bible Society in Australia, 1972. Pushtu. 1884. The Sermon on the Mount.

Bible So-

Canberra:

Port Moresby:

Lithographed.

Lahore:

1884. Seneca. Harris. 1829. Christ hagonthahninoh nonodagahyot. Printed for the American Tract Society by D. Fanshaw. New York: 1829. Translated by T. S. Harris and J. Young. English and Seneca on opposite pages. Bound with Young, James, fl. 1820-29. Gainoh ne nenodowohga neuwahnuhdah. Sindhi. 1883. The Sermon on the Mount.

Lithographed.

Karachi:

1883. Spanish and Tzeltal. 1951. Sk'op Jesus la schol ta wits. EI Sermon del monte (Mateo 5-7). Cuernavaca: Tip. Indigena, 1951. Suau. 1972. Oea tupi eai guguiana. in Australia, 1972.

Port Moresby:

Bible Society

142

Bibliography

(Matthew V-Vll. ) Tulu. 1900. The Sermon on the Mount. Madras: Auxiliary to the B. and F. B. S. Mangalore, 1900. Turkish. 1860? The Sermon on the Mount.

Constantinople:

1863. The Sermon on the Mount with commentary. tinople: 1863.

1860? Constan-

• Umon. 1895. Mark udid g~r~ weni Jisus ugat age okput ibibi. Age g~r~ Um~n. Mark' s Gospel and the Sermon on the Mount in Um~n. Translated by Ebenezer Deas. Edinburgh: National Bible Society of Scotland, 1895.

---,:::-;:-

G~spel

Zulu. 1860? Enkulumo e ze shunyaelo nko Yesu Kristi e Nkosi e tu e Ntabeni, Mattheu V. VI. VII. Ze penduloe nke nkulumo ea ba ka Zulu (nko J. Allison). Pietermaritzburg: D. D. Buchanan, 1860? Matthew VI. English. Authorized. 1960? The sixth chapter of St. Matthew containing the Lord' s prayer. New York: Hammer Creek Press, 1960? 65 copies printed. Decorations by Valenti Angelo. In addition to above, 20 copies were printed on Arches hand-made paper for the arlist and printer.

SERMON ON THE MOUNT CRITICISM, INTERPRETATION, SERMONS, MEDITATIONS, ETC. Aanby, Sigurd S. Bergprekenen med forklaringer. Til st~tte ved undervisningen i middelskolens avgangsklasse. Oslo: Dybwad, 1926. Abel, F. M. "Coup d'oeil sur la Koine." 35 {1926) 5-26.

Revue biblique

Abernathy, A. R. "A Study of the Sermon on the Mount." Review and Expositor 18 (1921) 193-201. Achelis, Ernest C. Die Bergpredigt nach Matthäeus und Lucas exegetisch und kritisch untersucht. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klassing, 1875. An exhaustive study considered for many years a standard work. Adams, Frank D. Did Jesus Mean It? salist Publishing House, 1923. Prayers and study questions.

Boston:

Univer-

Adeney, Walter F. "Sermon on the Mount," in Hastings, James, ed. A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908, 60712. Ahlberg, Adolf. Bergspredikans etik. De nyare tolkningsmrsl:lken. Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen, Bokförlag, 1930. A scholarly treatment of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. Ahlberg, P. V. Jesu bergspredikan enligt Matteus' evangelium 5. -7. kapitlen. Med text samt inledning och förklarande anmärkningar. Laxsjl:l: Fl:lrfattaren, 1927. 143

144

Bibliography

Aicher, Georg. "Mt. 5, 13: Ihr seid das Salz der Erde?" Biblische Zeitschrift 5 (1907) 48-59. Allen, Charles L. The Sermon on the Mount. Westwood, N. J.: Revell, 1966. A popular interpretation relating the Sermon on the Mount to the Christian Life. Allen, Erastus D. The Spirit of Christ' s Sermon on the Mount. St. Louis: 1921. -"Brief popular treatment. Allen, Isaac N. Reflections on Portions of the Sermon on the Mount. Intended Principally for Soldiers. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1848. Meditations. Allen, J. P. The Sermon on the Mount. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1959. Qiestions designed for group study and discussion. Allgeier, A. "Die Crux interpretum im neutestamentlichen Ehescheidungsverbot. Eine philologische Untersuchung zu Mt. 5, 32, und 19, 9" in Reverendissimo Patri Iacobo Mariae Voste. Roma: Saluta del Grillo, 1943, 128-42. Allstrom, Elizabeth C. Truly I Say to You. Woodcuts by Mel Silverman. New York: Abingdon, 1966. Juvenile. Andren, Victor. Jesu Bergspredikan. Tre föredrag. Uddevalla: Krykliga forbundet, 1937. Andrews, Charles F. The Sermon on the Mount. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1942; New York: Macmillan, 1942; Toronto: Nelson, 1942; New York: Collier Books, 1962. Various topics such as the Kingdom of God, the Beatitudes, the Law of Love are emphasized. Sermon on the Mount is a description of the good life. Archer, E. Wallace. "Matthew V. 39." 42 (1930-31) 190-91.

Expository Times

Arendzen, J. P. "Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce." Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919) 230-41.

Sermon Commentaries

145

Arenson, Adolf. Die Bergpredigt. Berlin: Philosophischtheosophischer Verlag, 1914. An address wirich interprets the Sermon on the Mount from a theosophical point of view. Bergspredikan. Norrköping: (See bis Die Bergpredigt}

Forlagsfören, 1914.

Arndt, Friedrich. Die Bergpredigt Jesu Christi. Siebenzehn Betrachtungen in der Trinitatiszeit 1837 gehalten. 2 Bd. Magdeburg: W. Heinrichshofen, 1838-1839. Arnold, Eberhard. Salt and Light; Talks and Writings on the Sermon on the Mount. Rifton, N. Y.: Plough Publishing House, 1967. The founder of the communities of the Society of Brothers (Bruderhof) views the Sermon on the Mount as relevant in its unconditional absoluteness to the Christian life. Deals with such issues as hopes for a peaceful world, the attitude of the heart in man's relationship to bis fellow man, man's relationship to material goods, money, property, man's attitude to the question of power. Asmussen, Hans. Die Bergpredigt. Eine Auslegung von Matth. Kap 5-7. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939. Verse by verse commentary with practical emphasis. Atkins, Gaius G. From the Hillside. Boston: Press; London: Independent Press, 1948. Popular exposition.

Pilgrim

Augsburger, Myron S. The Expanded Life: the Sermon on the Mount for Today. New York: Abingdon, 1972. The Beatitudes are interpreted as an outline for the Sermon on the Mount. They form a series of themes which make up the Sermon. Each Beatitude is projected into the Sermon to see how Jesus bimself interpreted its meaning. The nature of discipleship is emphasized by relating the Beatitudes to our total life pattern. Augustin, George. "Soyez parfaits comme votre Pere celeste (Matth. 5, 17-48)." Bible et vie chretienne 19 (1957} 85-90. Augustine, Saint. Augustinus zur Bergpredigt. Eingeleitet und übertragen von Albert Schmitt. St. Ottilien: Eos-

146 Verlag, 1952. (See his De Sermone Domini in Monte.

Bibliography Book IJ, 1494)

. Commentaire sur le Sermon de la Montagne. --=T..-r-a.... a-. de I 'abbe Devoille. Rio de Janeiro: Au siege central de l'eglise positiviste du Bresil, 1905. (See his De Sermone Domini in Monte, 1494) Les Commentaires de St. Augustin, sur le Sermon de Nostre Seigneur sur la Montagne. Trad. Pierre Lombert. Paris: A. Pralard, 1683; Paris, F. et P. Delaulne, 1701. (See his De Sermone Domini in Monte, 1494) Commentary on the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, with Seventeen Related Sermons. Trans. Denis J. Kavanagh. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1951; Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1963 (See his De Sermone Domini in Monte, 1494) Divi Aurelii Augustine, . • • de Sermone Domini in monte secundum Matthaeum libri duo. Parisiis: apud viduam M. Durand, 1669. (See his De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494) Divi Aurelii Augustine liber de Agone christiano. De Sermone Christi in monte habito. Coloniae: U. Zell, ca. 1472; Pellechet: 1571. (See his De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494) Expositio beati Augustini de Sermone Domini in monte. Parisiis: per U. Gering et B. Rembolt, 1494; Paris: 1502; Pellechet: 1506. A commentary in two Books. Book I is an interpretation of Matthew 5 in which Augustine seeks to answer the question of the true meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. Book ll deals with Matthew 6-7, and he emphasizes especially prayer, centering around an interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. Augustine regards the Sermon on the Mount as a perfect pattern of the Christian lüe and a standard for every Christian. This work is a significant contribution to the history of ethics and moral theology. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount. Trans. John J. Jepson. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press; London: Longmans, Green, 1948. (See his De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494)

Sermon Commentaries

147

The Preaching of Augustine, "Our Lord' s Sermon on the Mount." Edited and with an introd. by Jaroslav Pelikan. Trans. Fraueine Cardman. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973. (See bis De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494) The Sermon on the Mount Expounded, and The Harmony of the Evangelists. Trans. by William Findlay and S. D. F. Salmond. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873. (See bis De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494) De sermone Domini in monte libros duos. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1967. (See bis De Sermone Domini in monte, 1494) De sermone Domini in libri duo. Migne, Jacques P., completus. Series Latina 34. (See bis De Sermone Domini

monte secundum Matthaeum comp. Patrologiae cursus Parisiis: 1861, 1229-1308. in monte, 1494)

Azibert, L'abbe. "Le sermon 'in monte' selon S. Matthieu (V, VI, VII); in 'loco campestri' selon S. Luc (VI. 2049)." Revue biblique 3 (1894) 94-109. Bachmann, Johannes P. "The Sermon on the Mount in the Interpretation of the Enthusiasts and of Luther." STM thesis. Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1961. Bacon, Benjamin W. "The Order of the Lukan 'Interpolations.' rr. The Smaller Interpolation, Lk. 6:20-8:3. II Journal of Biblical Literature 36 (191 7) 112-39. The Sermon on the Mount; Its Literary Structure and Didactic Purpose. New York: Macmillan, 1902. One of the early exponents of biblical higher criticism in the United States applies the "new science" to the Sermon on the Mount. A significant, scholarly work. "The 'Single' Eye."

Expositor 8th ser. 7 (1914-

A) 275-88. Bäumlein, W. "Die exegetische Grundlage der Gesetzgebung über Ehescheidung." Theologische Studien und Kritiken 30 (1957) 329-30. Bahnsen, Wilhelm. Das Christenthum der Bergpredigt, in Predigten dargelegt. Berlin: Hermann Peters, 1889. Sermons.

148

Bibliography

Baillie, Donald M. "The Sermon on the Mount." Times 39 (1927-28) 443-47.

Expository

Baker, Abijah R. A Q.Iestion Book on the Topics in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. 3 vols. Boston: Graves and Young, 1863. Balmforth, Ramsden. Spiritual Agnosticism and the Sermon on the Mount in Relation to Problems of Social Reconstruction. London: Daniel, 1921. The author emphasizes the ethical interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount in contradistinction to the ecclesiastical, theological, or intellectual. A pronounced emphasis upon the practicality of the Sermon and its relevance to social problems. Baltensweiler, Heinrich. "Die Ehebruchsklauseln bei Matthä.us." Theologische Zeitschrift 15 {1959) 340-56. Barclay, William. The Old Law and the New Law. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1972. A popular treatment of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Intended for study and discussion. Barnette, Henlee. "The Ethic of the Sermon on the Mount." Review and Expositor 53 (1956) 23-33. Barth, Fritz. Die Grundslitze der Bergpredigt und das Leben der Gegenwart. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1899. Brief essay. Barton, George A. "The Meaning of the 'Royal Law, ' Matt. 5: 21-48." Journal of Biblical Literature 37 (1918} 54-65. Bartsch, Hans W. "Feldrede und Bergpredigt. Redaktionsarbeit in Lukas 6." Theologische Zeitschrift 16 (1960} 5-18; auch in: Entmythologisierende Auslegung. HamburgBergstedt: 1962, 116-24. Bassermann, Heinrich. De loco Matthaei capitis V, 17-20 commentatio exegetica, critica, historica theogorum jenensium ordini.... Jenae: apud Hermannum Dabis, 1876. A detailed and scholarly commentary on Matthew 5:1720. Bassi, Domenico.

L'etica christiana nel Discorse della Mon-

Sermon Commentaries

149

tagna. Firenze: Felice Le Monnier, 1935. Sermon on the Mount is divided into sections with each chapter a commentary on one section. Question of ethics is central. Batdorf, Irwin W. "How Shall We Interpret the Sermon on the Mount?" Journal of Bible and Religion 27 (1959) 21117. Bates, Walter G. Our Lord's Great Sermon. Hobson Book Press, 1945. Sermons and meditations.

New York:

Bauer, Johannes Baptist. "De coniugali foedere quid edixerit Matthaeus? (Mt 5, 31f.; 19, 3-9)." Verbum Domini 44 (1966) 74-78. "' Q10d si sal infatuatum fuerit' (Mt. 5, 13; Mc. 9, 50; Lc. 14, 34)." Verbum Domini 29 (1951) 228-30. Bauer, W. "Das Gebot des Feindesliebe und die alten Christen, " in Aufsätze und kleine Schriften. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967, 235-52. Baumann, Franz. Leitlinien zur Lebensgestaltung. Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt. ZUrich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1965. Meditations, with emphasis on the relevance of the Sermon on the Mount for life. Bau~g~rten,

Otto. Bergpredi~ und Kultur der Gegenwart. Tüb1ngen: J. C. B. Mohr, 921. Commentary which emphasizes post-World War I problems in light of the Sermon on the Mount. Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt. mann, 1915.

Bavinck, Johan H. Meditations.

Het licht des levens.

Berlin:

C. Hey-

Magelang:

1934.

Tjahja kahidoepan atawa satoe pengoendjoek djalan pada kaslametan j ang kekal. Disalin ka dalam bahasa Melajoe rendah oleh: saorang Tasik. Batavia: Dikeloearkan oleh Maleische Chr. Lectuur Vereeniging, 1936; Djakarta: B. P. Kristen, J947 (1950). (See his Het licht des levens)

150 Beckett, Thomas A. Allenson, 1909. Beguiristain, Santos. Marsiega, 1963.

Bibliography Sermon on the Mount.

London:

El serm6n de la montaiia.

Beijer, Erik. "Gudsrikets rättiärdighet." kvartalskrift 18 (1942) 89-111.

H. R.

Madrid:

Svensk teologisk

Kristologi och etik in Jesu Bergspredikan. Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen Boki6rlag. 1960. A scholarly analysis which treats the history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and its relationship to ethical and Christological questions. "Til Bergspredikans etik. En litteraturr,versikt. Domprosten och f6rste teologie professorn teologie doktor Erik Stave. In piam memoriam, " in Svensk exegetisk ärsbok n. Uppsala: Wretmans boktryckeri A. -B.' 1937, 200-26. Berger, R. "Die Magna Charta der Gottesherrschaft." Theologisches Jahrbuch (1967) 113-23. Die Bergpredigt. 2. Aufl. Unterweise mich, Herr, nach Deinem Wort. Gruppenarbeit unter Jugendlichen über Bibel und Kirche. 5. Hrsg. von Carl Ernst Sommer. Frankfurt am Main: Anker-Verlag, 1966. Die Bergpredigt, nach Inhalt und Zusammenhang. Ein exegetisch-homiletischer Versuch. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1881. "Die Bergpredigt und das positive Recht." Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit. Protokoll der Wochenend-Studientagung von 5. -7. Dez. 1952 im Heim der Evangelischen Akademie Schloss Assenheim/Oberhessen: 1952.

-

De Bergrede. Afzonderlijke uitgave uit de bijbelverklaring, bewerkt naar Lange's Bibelwerk. Zuid-Beyerland: L. Rijsdijk, 1865. De Bergrede. In de nieuwe vertaling op last van de Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap door de daartoe benoemde commissie bewerkt en in de Statenvertaling van 1657. Met een inleiding door L. J. van Holk. Naarden: In den Toren, 1941.

Sermon Commentaries

151

Berguer, Georges. Le Sermon sur la montagne qui est comme le porche d'entree de I 'evangile portant graves au fronton, 3 mots: vous ~tes heureuxl Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1944. Beyer, Hermann W. Der Christ und die Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung. Munchen: C. Kaiser Verlag, 1935. Beyer, Karl. Jesu als Lehrer. Präparationen zu den Gleichnissen und der Bergpredigt. Hilfsbuch, Methodisches, fUr den evangelischen Religionsunterricht. 6. Bd. Berlin: Prausnitz, 1914. Beyschlag, Karlmann. "Die Bergpredigt bei Franz von Assisi und Luther." Theologische Literaturzeitung 11 {1953) 688f. Die Bergpredigt und Franz von Assisi. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1955. Contains four sections: {1) Exegesis; {2) Analysis of early Franciscan literature; {3) The Sermon on the Mount in St. Francis of Assisi; (4) A comparison of the Sermon on the Mount in Francis and Luther. Biebericher, T. "Christus en het eudaimonisme, naar aanleiding van Matth. VI. 1-5." Theologische studien 28 (1910) 24-31. Bierbaum, Athanasius. Die Bergpredigt. 20 Abhandlungen für Exerzitien und Monatskonferenzen vor Ordensleuten. Werl: Franziskus-Druckerei, 1936. Bietz, Artbur L. Truths for Eternity. Publishing Assn., 1952. Meditations.

Nashville:

Southern

Bischoff, Erich. Jesu und die Rabbinen: Jesu Bergpredigt und "Himmelreich" in ihrer Unabhängigkeit vom Rabbinismus. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905. scholarly treatise which maintains that Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount are earlier than the rabbinie parallels and that bis concept of the Kingdom of God has a deeper meaning than the Old Testament parallels.

---x

152

Bibliography

Blaauw, August F. H. Jezus Christus in de Bergrede, vergeleken met Jezus Christus in het overige Nieuwe Testament. Groningen: R. J. Schierbeek, 1870. ----scholarly monograph. Blackall, Ofspring. Practical discourses upon our Saviour's Sermon on the Mount. London: Printed by W. B. for Thomas Ward, 1717-18. Sermons. Blackwood, Andrew W. "The Sermon on the Mount for Today." Union Seminary Review 41 (1929-30) 162-78. Bläser, Pedro. "Actitud de Jesus frente al Divorcio (Mt. 5, 27-42)." Revista biblica 17 (1955) 78-80. 27-32)."

"Actitud de Jesus frente a1 Matrimonio (Mt. 5, Revista biblica 17 (1955) 37-39.

"La vocaci6n de los discipulos (Mt. 5, 13-16)." Revista biblica 16 (1954) 119-21. Blair, Edward P. Leader's Guide to the Study of the Sermon on the Mount. Nashville: Äbingdon, 1968. A study manual for the United Methodist Church' s Quadrennial Emphasis Bible Study 1968-1972. Each of the eight study sessions outlines objectives and suggestions for reaching these objectives as well as how to prepare for each session. Emphasis is upon the relation of the Sermon on the Mount to living the Christian lüe. Blair, James. Our Saviour's Divine Sermon on the ·Mount, Contained in the Vth, Vlth, and Vllth Chapters of St. Matthew' s Gospel, Explained: and the Practice of It Recommended in Divers Sermons and Discourses. 4 v. London: Printed for J. Brotherton and J. Oswald, 1740. Pub. in 1722-23 in 5 v. Blomqvist, Rudolf. Bergspredikan och v~r kristendoms tre första huvudstycken med en undervisares uppteckningar. För hem och skola. Visby: Författaren, 1939. Blumhardt, Johann Christoph. Die Bergpredigt Jesu. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: Hänssler, 1969. Brief book of meditations by the faunder of Bad Boll center. Evangelical and pietistic accent.

Sermon Commentaries

153

Blunt, A. W. F. "The Sermon on the Mount." Times 39 (1927-28) 545-50.

Expository

Boardman, George D. Studies in the Mountain Instruction. New York: D. Appleton, 1880 (1901). Fourteen lectures. B~cher,

0. "Wölfe in Schafspelzen. Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Matth 7:15." Theologische Zeitschrift 24 (1968) 405-26.

Boehmer, Julius. Die Bergpredigt. Neu verdeutscht und kurz erklärt für das Bedürfnis der Gegenwart. Wernigerode: Die Aue, 1926. B~rger,

J. De Bergrede. Verzarneide redevoeringen. 's-Gravenhage: Orion, 1927.

Bogdashevskii, D.

Blazhenstva Gospodni.

Kiev:

1907.

Bohmerle, Theodor. Das GlUckseligkeitsreich. Eine Auslegung des Evangeliums Matth. 5-7. Langensteinbach: Bibelheim Bethanien, 1921. Boice, James M. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972. A detailed examination of Matt. 5-7 from an evangelical perspective. The Sermon on the Mount is a summons to a new life and not a legalistic system of morality. It shows us the absolute necessity of the new birth. Bone, Harry, and Van Dusen, Henry P., and Cherrington, Ben M. Ten studies in the Sermon on the Mount. New York: Association Press, 1926. Study questions. Contains a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount by G. R. H. Shafto. Bonham, Tal D. The Demands of Discipleship; the Relevance of the Sermon on the Mount. Pine Bluff, Ark. : Discipleship Book Co., 1967. A historical survey of the history of interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount with an emphasis on its relevance. Among other interpretations, Bonharn deals with the views of literalism, premillenialism, and dispensationalism. "A Study of the Relevance of the Sermon on the

Bibliography

154

Mount in Matthew 5-7." Th. D. thesis. Baptist Theological Serninary, 1963.

Southwestern

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. London: SCM Press, 1948 (1959); New York: Macmillan, 1949 (1959). (See his Nachfolge) The Extraordinariness of the Christian Lüe; a Bible Study of the Sermon on the Mount. New York: National Student Christian Federation, 1964. Contains the section on the Sermon on the Mount from The Cost of Discipleship. (See his Nachfolge). • Nachfolge. München: C. Kaiser Verlag, 1937 --,:;(1"""9"""67""'"). A classic work on the meaning of Christian discipleship by the renowned theologian and martyr. The second and Iongest section of the book is an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount and the Christian life. EI precio de la gracia. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1968. (See his Nachfolge) Le prix de la Niestie, 1962. (See his Nachfolge)

gr~ce.

Trad. Jose L. Sicre.

Neuch::ttel:

Bonnard, Pierre. "EI Sermon de monte." teologicos 9-10 (1954) 40-54.

Delachaux et

Cuadernos

"Le Sermon sur la montagne." Revue de theologie et de philosophie 3 (1953) 233-46. Le Sermon sur la montagne.

Neuch:tteljParis:

1956.

Bonsirven, Joseph. "'Nisi fornicationis causa.' Comment resoudre cette 'Crux interpretum I?" Recherehes de science religieuse 35 (1948) 442-64. Bonus, Albert. "Righteousness and Almsgiving and st. Matthew VI. 1." Expository Times 11 (1899-1900) 379-81. "St. Luke VI. 19." 07) 287-88.

Expository Times 18 (1906-

Sermon Commentaries

155

Borg, M. "New Context for Romans 13." Sturlies 19 (1973) 205-18.

New Testament

Bornhä.user, Karl B. _D_i_e-'-B-:e:::':r~gp~r_e_d-;-i-:"fgt'---.~V,e-'-r.;.su="'"c.;;.;h;;:-;e:.;:i.:.:n.;;.;e=-r-'z-'e'7i'>evotional exercises intended for students. Lavallee, Fleury. Meditations.

Beatitudes.

2-e ed.

Paris:

Vitte, 1927

Lawson, William. Good Christian Men Rejoice; the Meaning and Attainment of Happiness. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. Practical study which sees the Beatitudes as the fulfillment of the self in God. They are blessings which mean our present happiness. Legasse, Simon. "Les pauvres en esprit et les 'volontaires' de Qumran." New Testament Studies 8 (1962) 33645.

260

Bibliography

Lemonnyer, A. "Le Messianisme des 'Beatitudes. '" Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 11 (1922) 37389. Livingston, William J. B. "A Critical and Homiletical Treatment of the Beatitudes." Masters' thesis. Richmond, Va.: Union Theological Seminary, 1945. Lopez Melus, Francisco Maria. Perspectivas de las Bienaventuranzas. 2. ed. Madrid: Casa de la Biblia, 196 7. Lowrie, Sarah D. Meditations.

Meditations on the Beatitudes.

n. p., n. d.

Lüthi, Walter. Les Beatitudes. Trad. Roland Revet. cMtel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1963. (See his Die Seligpreisungen)

Neu-

Die Seligpreisungen. Ausgelegt fUr die Gemeinde. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1961. Addresses given before various audiences. De Zaligspreki?ßen. Voor de gemeente verklaard. Vert. T. Van der Veen. Franeker: T. Wever, 1963. (See his Die Seligpreisungen) Luttichau, S. Graf von. "'lFrr-:-i;o~h.c:..b_;_ot~s:;:c::.:h:..:,af;.;:-t:..:.._-:;:Drie..:.....,;Ar::uii'-sl""e""g'""u::.:ng:!i